Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2)Bill

Lords amendments agreed to.

NORTHUMBRIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Whitney: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation of the policy of applying cash limits to the nationalised industries.

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement of the terms on which subventions are given to nationalised industries as regards earmarking of funds for capital and current expenditure.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): Ordinary market disciplines do not apply to the raising of finance by industry in public ownership. The amount of external finance, therefore, has to be determined by the Government. The limits set for each industry are derived from their medium-term objectives and take into account their investment programmes and their ability to generate finance for such investment internally. Government finance is not generally hypothecated to particular purposes.

Mr. Whitney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that statement. Does he think it surprising that chairmen of the various nationalised industries should undertake expensive and extensive political campaigns, apparently in conjunction with the relevant trade unions, to force the Government to relax their policies on public sector spending? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in the case of British Railways, 1 per cent. less in wage increases could provide funds for a 5 per cent. increase in investment?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with my hon. Friend. Such campaigns are not only surprising but deplorable. I do not believe that the money obtained by nationalised industries,

from whatever source—whether through what they charge for their products or from elsewhere—should be spent in that way.
The figure quoted by my hon. Friend is correct. Each 2 per cent. off wage costs in the nationalised industries generally would save about £250 million per annum. Each 1 per cent. off total costs would save about £300 million. That would give substantial scope for investment.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the growing concern about the practice of giving large amounts of taxpayers' money to nationalised industries without any policy guidelines or restrictions being set by the Government? That money could be used for excessive wage settlements. Does my right hon. and learned Friend share that concern?

Mr. Brittan: I share the concern that money given to nationalised industries should be used sensibly. It is precisely because of our efforts to ensure that that happens that some nationalised industries are uncomfortable with our policies.

Mr. Shore: I am sure that the House can do without the Chief Secretary's homilies addressed to the nationalised industries about what he calls political activities—considering that they are being politically assaulted in the most absurd and ideological way. Does the Chief Secretary agree that in the light of the experience of last year—and, to some extent, this year—in which he has had progressively to change EFLs for different and important nationalised industries, he has set the target at a ludicrously restrictive level? Is not the only effect of doing this to drive up prices faster in the nationalised industries than anywhere else? Indeed, last year prices increased by 22 per cent. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his EFL policy?

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot criticise us for having unrealistic EFLs and then criticise us for changing them. It is a strange sort of assault on the nationalised industries that increases planned investment from £4·5 billion in 1980–81 to £5·2 billion in each of the next three years. Many private concerns would like to experience that sort of assault.

Mr. Renton: As every household and every company in the private sector separates clearly the money that it borrows on capital account from the money that it borrows on current account, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it would help if that were done much more visibly and clearly by nationalised industries? If that were done much more ostensibly, would it not help the British public and members of this honourable House to evaluate the performance of the nationalised industries' capital programmes?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that we could usefully make the distinction clearer. However, full figures for public corporations' current and capital expenditure are shown in the national income Blue Book. It may be that we should bring the distinction more to the fore.

Mr. Dubs: Is it not a fact that the Government have been refusing nationalised industries opportunities to indulge in profitable capital investment? Does not that inevitably make the task of the nationalised industries more difficult? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that by following this policy the Government are indulging in a vendetta against nationalised industries?

Mr. Brittan: I find it a strange sort of vendetta that increases by 15 per cent. the amount of money available to the nationalised industries. The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No". In the investment of nationalised industries over the past decade there is no evidence to support the suggestion that genuine investment that can be productive has been starved by Government rationing.

Interest Rates

Mr. Soley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has any proposals to reduce the rate of interest in the near future.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to take steps to reduce interest rates.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): It remains our objective to allow interest rates to fall further, but only as and when circumstances permit. United Kingdom interest rates are now lower than those in most other industrial countries.

Mr. Soley: With the advantage of hindsight, does the Chancellor think that his tight money policy, which pushed up interest rates and attracted short-term foreign funds into an overvalued sterling, was largely responsible for the drastic domestic collapse of the British economy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept that for one moment. With the advantage of hindsight I would say that the relative movement of United Kingdom and other countries' interest rates during the first half of the year represented an endorsement of the fiscal stance that I adopted in the Budget.

Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that MLR serves any useful purpose? Does he have any proposals for abolishing it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I explained in my Budget Statement, it is our intention to enable market forces to play a greater role in determining interest rates. Discussions on further improvements in monetary control are well advanced. The Bank has issued the final draft of the detailed provisions. When these are put into effect we shall aim to keep short-term interest rates within an unpublished band. It may then be appropriate to suspend the practice of publishing the MLR.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: As the Chancellor will still intervene on interest rates whatever may happn to MLR, what is the main factor in his policy on interest rates? Is it the exchange value of sterling, the behaviour of national income or the movement of monetary aggregates?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The factors that have an effect on interest rates are described in my Budget Statement. They are dependent primarily on monetary considerations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not have a target for the exchange rate. We believe that that should be determined principally by market forces.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the borrowing requirement were to be increased, that would lead inevitably to increased interest rates?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is the experience in other countries where

interest rates are significantly higher than in the United Kingdom. One of the contributory causes is the extent to which borrowing in those countries is higher than it is here.

Public Sector Investment

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he assesses the value to the economy of investment in the public sector.

Mr. Brittan: Investments in the public sector are assessed by the industry, department, or other public body which is making the investment, by comparing the costs and benefits using recognised investment appraisal techniques.

Mr. Adley: In making these comparisons, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the essential difference between investment in industry and investment, for example, in the nation's transport infrastructure? Does he accept that, whereas cars, steel or coal can be imported from abroad if necessary, no one other than ourselves will modernise our transport infrastructure? Will he give me an assurance that this factor is taken into account?

Mr. Brittan: That factor should be taken into account and is taken into account. That does not necessarily mean that any particular investment is justified. However, it is a relevant consideration.

Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister still believe in his crowding-out theory—that increases in public investment will crowd out private investment in the economy? How does he explain to the British people that with nearly 3 million unemployed we cannot afford to build more houses to reduce the housing waiting list, we cannot improve the railways and we cannot improve our rapidly deteriorating water and sewerage facilities? How can he explain to the public that the resources are not available for more public investment?

Mr. Brittan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I lay no claim to the authorship of the crowding-out theory or of any other theory. However, if we increase public borrowing totals, the effect is to increase interest rates, which has an effect on the private sector. It is significant that the major call from industry in the past year has been for lower interest rates.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If one could take one specific example—

Mr. Skinner: Ask a question. You are not writing for the Sunday Telegraph now.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: —could I ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going to put his example in his question.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he thinks that we are likely to obtain a good return on investment in electrification in British Rail, for example, so long as the average freight train crew on British Rail covers 11 miles a day?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend has identified one major problem in British Rail. I think that he will welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


for Transport, which stressed the link between improvements in productivity and investment in electrification.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: In her speech to the CBI, the Prime Minister said that nationalised industries should be assessed on their performance rather than on their promises. Why are the Government penalising British Gas, for example, by selling off its most profitable and successful part? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman cease to blame nationalised industries and instead regard them as sensible outlets for investment during the present slump?

Mr. Brittan: The justification for privatisation does not depend solely on the considerations that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Economic Policy

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans any new initiative to improve the economy.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's economic policies.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall continue with present policies to bring inflation down, and lay the foundations for sustainable economic growth.

Mr. Canavan: What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think of the remarks made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about the disastrous social consequences of the Government's monetarist polocies—[Interruption.]—especially the social cuts, with over 2½ million unemployed, which could breed racial hatred and juvenile crime? When even an ex-Tory Prime Minister tells us that some public spending cuts are more damaging than the savings justify, is not it about time that even this Tory Chancellor changed course and tried to regenerate the economy by means of more public investment instead of less?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was proud to serve as a member of the Administration that was led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I still share entirely the same objectives as the right hon. Gentleman. However, like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have drawn quite different conclusions as a result of my experience.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am inquiring whether the use of the phrase "nut case" by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) when he referred to the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) the ex-Prime Minister, is in order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not believe that the hon. Member will find that word in the list in "Erskine May".

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not want any proof of anything at all. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) wants to say something, I shall call him.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I was only seeking clarification as to whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was a nut case.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must try to maintain parliamentary standards in this place. I deprecate such terms.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the crude abuse by Conservative Members about the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), was not the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday the most damaging indictment of Government economic policies?
Is it not the case that far from there being any question of economic recovery round the corner there are continued redundancies, closures and short-time working, and British industry is being crippled?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are many signs—in the opposite sense to what the hon. Gentleman says—that recovery will be shortly under way. If one wishes to look for the causes of redundancy, I found some interesting examples when I visited the West Midlands, including the hon. Member's constituency, last week. I found that most businesses in that area were complaining at the increased redundancies following from the planned increase in expenditure by the West Midlands county council and the consequential rate increases.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that when investments in the public sector, particularly in its infrastructure, which only the public sector can undertake, offer an economic rate of return, it is important that they should not be artificially held back by the effect of the recession on the PSBR?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has explained, that is why there has been a 15 per cent. increase, for example, in the projected capital spending, in real terms, on nationalised industries. To take one example, that is why British Telecommunications is expected, even in the public expenditure White Paper, to be spending more than £2 billion in each year up to 1983–84. That can hardly be described as a policy of holding back public sector investment.

Mr. Jay: Which of his policies does the Chancellor of the Exchequer feel has been most successful so far?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Centrally, it is the policy of reducing the rate of inflation, which has fallen by 10 per cent. in the last 12 months—

Mr. Canavan: Tell us what it was when the Conservative Government came in?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: —alongside a 5 per cent. reduction in the interest rates. I am content to go on listing such examples for some time.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his call in a speech the other day for no more than a 5 per cent. increase in pay and salaries next year would do much for the economy? Is he now moving towards a form of voluntary incomes policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, Sir. The experience of successive Governments of both parties has directly led to a rejection of that approach. It is clear that it is necessary for us to continue to improve our competitiveness and to reduce unit labour costs. For that purpose, moderation in pay settlements is essential in all parts of the economy. I was delighted that last week, in a broadcast commentary


on my speech, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) accepted that high pay settlements could have much to do with creating unemployment.

Mr. Shore: May I come back to the original question? It is plain to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans and will not announce any new initiatives to improve the economy. With regard to his Birmingham speech, is it not the case that he is envisaging not anything to do with a more orderly way of trying to relate pay and prices together in this country but an unprecedented reduction in real earnings during the coming year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that over the last three years, when there was no matching increase in output, real personal earnings rose by 17 per cent. or 18 per cent. while the income of the corporate sector fell by 25 per cent. In those circumstances there must be a matching change in the opposite direction, and as part of that, if we are to secure a reduction in unemployment, there is an overwhelmingly strong case for pay moderation. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would endorse in this House the plain proposition that unduly high pay settlements mean unduly high unemployment.

Economic Situation

Mr. Dormand: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to see a substantial improvement in the economy.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is now increasing evidence that output has stopped falling. The prospect is for some recovery over the next year or so. Progress will largely depend on the extent to which we continue to improve United Kingdom competitiveness through more effective control of domestic costs.

Mr. Dormand: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that the further round of public expenditure cuts which he proposes could be self-defeating, even for the crazy economics of this Government? Will he comment on the reports that that is also the view of the Treasury? In view of recent developments, will he say whether he is revising monetary targets and at the same time proposing a return to high interest rates?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should imagine that I should want to do the last thing to which he referred. Announcements about monetary targets were made at the ordinary time and in the ordinary way. There is no truth in the suggestion that the case for reducing public expenditure is doubted in my Department. It is overwhelmingly clear from what is being done in other countries besides ours—for example, in Western Germany or Denmark—that there is clear recognition that unduly high public expenditure means unduly high interest rates, unduly high inflation and unduly high unemployment.

Mr. Forman: Since it is vital that the chances of substantial economic recovery are not vitiated by lack of competitiveness and excessive pay settlements, will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the imaginative proposal for a wider economic forum which was contained in our manifesto at the last election? Can he say something today to give me and the House hope that we may act upon it?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, for example, the discussions which we have regularly with the National Economic Development Council are directed to such an end. I am anxious to find every opportunity of extending discussion about the link between unduly high pay settlements and unduly high unemployment and to take every opportunity of extending the case for improving our productivity and competitiveness.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider the claim which he has just made, that the most successful part of his policy has been the reduction in prices and the bringing down of inflation? Does he not agree with the Treasury's figures, which show that he was responsible for pushing up the index by 11 per cent. in his first year of office and by 6½ per cent. in the second year? Therefore, is he not now saying that the most succesful part of his policy is reducing the damage in price increases which he has imposed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has got it precisely wrong. When we came into office the rate of inflation was rising fast and at the same time we were going through the consequences of the collapse of the last Government's pay policy, contributing to an explosion in pay settlements in the public and private sectors. It has taken us two years to overcome those handicaps, which we inherited from the last Administration.

Overseas Investment

Mr. Jim Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on present levels of overseas investment by United Kingdom financial institutions.

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of portfolio and direct investment overseas by the United Kingdom financial institutions during the last 12 months, compared with the preceding two years.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): Portfolio investment overseas has increased substantially since exchange controls were abolished in 1979. These investments will provide a source of valuable overseas income for the future. Figures for portfolio investment by institutions exclude banks, while complete figures for direct investment overseas are not available. Using available data, the information is as follows:

United Kingdom Private Investment Overseas (net of disinvestment)


£ million



1978
1979
1980


Portfolio investment by financial institutions other than banks
720
670
2,250


Direct investment by banks and insurance companies
450
900
630

Mr. Marshall: Does not the Financial Secretary accept that when real investment in this country is declining, the record level of investment overseas—now running at about £4 billion per year—shows how little faith the financial institutions have in the Government's ability to turn round the economy?

Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. Apart from the hon. Gentleman's confusion between portfolio and real


investment, he is also overlooking the fact that the increase in overseas investment bears no relation to the level of investment in this country, which is determined primarily by the return on investment. That is agreed by everyone, including the authors of the Wilson report, chaired by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir. H. Wilson).

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Financial Secretary agree that withdrawal of capital is much more damaging to British industry than any withdrawal of labour? Will he condemn the banks and other financial institutions for failing to invest in Britain and British industries? In the light of the figures, will he change his policy on exchange control?

Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the announcement a fortnight ago by the mineworkers' pension fund that it proposed to take over at a cost of $265 million an American property company--Connecticut General Mortgage and Realty Investments. I suggest that he takes the matter up with the deputy chairman of the pension fund, Mr. Joe Gormley.

Mr. Foulkes: I shall.

Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the continuing high level of invisible exports emanating from financial institutions, whether by direct investment overseas or by general trading, without which our trade situation would have been infinitely poorer over the years?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I gladly pay that tribute.

Mr. Cook: Has no one told the Financial Secretary that in the past year investment by pension and insurance funds abroad exceeded the total for the preceding five years? Does he really believe that under this Government industry is so strong and healthy that it can afford that haemorrhage? If he does believe that there is that much spare capital around, will he and his colleagues at least stop insulting the House by stating that public sector investment crowds out private sector investment from a limited number of funds?

Mr. Lawson: As a result of the abolition of exchange control there has, of course, been an outflow of investment overseas. That is a clear consequence. However, there has also been a substantial capital inflow. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are as opposed to outflows of capital as they are to inflows, and their concept of the country as a seige economy is as politically unattractive as it would be economically damaging.

Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Is not the capital inflow a direct result of raising exchange controls, because it gives the foreign investor confidence that if he puts his money into the country he can get it out if a Labour Government come to office?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. and learned Friend is right. That is certainly one factor; another is confidence in Government policies.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Financial Secretary aware that not all those who pay their subscriptions to the National Union of Mineworkers are over the moon at the prospect of the pension fund being used to prop up an American property company, especially when, not many years ago, during the property boom under the previous Tory Prime Minister, the mineworkers' pension fund was used partly to finance

the Cedar Investment Trust, which collapsed with about 30 other banks, and most of the money was lost? Does he understand that some of us are, therefore, against such an investment?

Mr. Lawson: I understand that the hon. Gentleman against most things introduced by any Government at any time, not least against measures introduced by a Government whom he normally supports. The pension fund proposal is supported not only by Mr. Joe Gormley the deputy chairman of the fund. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, half the management of the mineworkers' pension fund is made up of representatives of the NUM. With his close links with the NUM, the hon. Gentleman is uniquely able to take the matter up directly with them.
Figures for portfolio investment by institutions exclude banks, while complete figures for direct investment overseas are not available. Using available data, the information is as follows:

United Kingdom Private Investment Overseas (net of disinvestment)


£ million



1978
1979
1980


Portfolio investment by financial institutions other than banks
720
670
2,250


Direct investment by banks and insurance companies
450
900
630

European Community (Budget)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total of United Kingdom net contributions to the budget of the European Economic Community since United Kingdom accession, expressed as a percentage of public expenditure.

Mr. Lawson: A little over a half of 1 per cent.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does not that figure, which represents rather less than one-eightieth of what we spend on social security, demonstrate the utter falsity of the picture so seduously fostered by the Labour Party and its accomplices in this matter in other parties that our contribution to the budget represents an intolerable and crushing burden on the British economy?

Mr. Lawson: I would rather put it another way. The small size of the—[Interruption.]—percentage is a reflection not of the small size—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members below the Gangway not to conduct private conversations during the answer.

Mr. Lawson: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker.
The relatively small size of our net contribution to the EEC budget expressed as a percentage of public expenditure is not a reflection of the small size of our contribution but rather of the very large size of our total public expenditure.

Mr. Hooley: What is the rationale of giving almost as much aid to the nine richest countries of the world as we do to the 120 poorest?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Member will be well aware that the Government have addressed themselves constructively and successfully to the problem, unlike the Government


whom he supported. As a result of the 30 May agreement we have secured a substantial reduction in our net contribution. Indeed, as a result of the restructuring proposals put before the Community by the Commission following the mandate that it was given in that agreement, we intend that further progress should be made.

Mr. Dykes: Is it not a colossal cheek for the Opposition to moan about a fairly modest agreement when, unlike the Prime Minister, they did nothing to reduce it when they were in office? Is not the sum about one-fifteenth of the total that they expended on wasteful and useless nationalisation of industries such as steel?

Mr. Lawson: It is unfair to say that the Labour Government did nothing. To use my hon. Friend's word, they moaned.

Mr. Shore: Could not the Financial Secretary, to the benefit of the British people, better spend the £400 million, which, as a result of his unsuccessful negotiations, we are to pay to the EEC this year, and the £500 million that we are to pay next year?

Mr. Lawson: It is the greatest impertinence for the right hon. Gentleman to call the negotiations unsuccessful. They were highly successful. They substantially reduced the net United Kingdom contribution—something that totally eluded the Government of which he was a member.

United States Secretary of the Treasury

Mr. Chris Patten: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet the United States Treasury Secretary; and what he proposes to discuss with him.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I expect to meet him again at the Ottawa summit on 19–20 July. We shall no doubt discuss our own economies and some international issues.

Mr. Patten: Following the recent report of the Bank of International Settlements, when my right hon. and learned Friend meets Mr. Regan will he raise with him the question of American interest rate policy, and particularly the volatility rather than just the level of the rates, since that, after all, is a matter of tactics rather than strategy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The volatility of American interest rates has been the subject of some discussion. The monetary control techniques introduced by the American authorities in October 1979 may have led to more interest rate movement, but so, perhaps, have other factors, such as sharp changes in real activity. We hope that as experience with the techniques grows the American authorities will achieve their objectives with less interest rate volatility. It is certainly a matter to be followed up.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Chancellor tell Mr. Regan that the Milton Friedman policies that the Government have pursued are disastrous, and the Americans should not follow suit? Will he also tell him that as, increasingly in Europe, especially with the change of Government in France, interventionist policies are being followed, perhaps Britain and America should consider what Roosevelt did to get America out of the depression?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman would be unwise to draw many conclusions from the change in one Government in Europe. The communiqués of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

and the IMF interim committee, for example, show that the policy of giving the highest priority to the fight against inflation and the securing and maintaining of proper economic control has the authoritative endorsement of both those international bodies. That is in line with our policy.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: When the Chancellor meets President Reagan will he co-ordinate with him plans to restore investment in the Western economy and to expand public demand?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I aspire directly to negotiate not with President Reagan but with Secretary of State Regan, although no doubt I shall have the opportunity to exchange words with both. In neither case would I wish to endorse the policy of expanding demand and expanding investment for its own sake when, in most economies, and certainly in our own, it is the excess of demand as compared with the performance of the economy that is the cause of our troubles.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress made since 10 March in bringing down the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Brittan: The strategy for reducing the PSBR was set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report and is being implemented, for example, in the Finance Bill.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it will be an important part of the half-yearly review under the Industry Act later this year to ensure that the increased taxes in the Budget really have reduced the PSBR?

Mr. Brittan: Certainly that is something which must be kept under review.

Mr. Cryer: What does the Minister say to the charge that the public expenditure cuts are creating massive unemployment, which a former distinguished Prime Minister has said is breeding race hatred and crime? Will he explain what kind of improved life the people of this nation will face at the end of what that former distinguished Prime Minister described as these incomprehensible policies?

Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that expenditure cuts are the cause of unemployment. The cause of unemployment is twofold. First, it is the world recession. Secondly, it is due to the fact that over a very long period we as a nation have paid ourselves more than we have earned. As for the future, I believe that the restoration of our economy on a sound basis will provide the opportunity for advance and the provision of jobs, which will be secure. It seems to me that that is much more ground for hope than to continue to spend money propping up inefficient industry.

Mr. Eggar: How big a reduction in the PSBR can we expect as a result of the privatisation of BNOC and other measures?

Mr. Brittan: It is not possible to give an estimate at this stage.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the PSBR is composed almost entirely of all the money used for dole


payments, redundancy payments and so on? A member of the present Cabinet indeed suggested that when there were 1·6 million unemployed the total amount of money spent on those matters was as much as £7 billion, so it must be nearly £15 billion now. One of the best ways to reduce the PSBR—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Skinner: One of the best possible ways to—[Interruption]—reduce the PSBR—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is the hon. Gentleman's way of asking a question. But he must try to get a question into it.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that one of the first ways of reducing the PSBR is to initiate a massive public works programme on the railways, the sewers and canals, and to introduce a 35-hour week without loss of pay, longer holidays, earlier retirement and measures of that kind which will—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to get on with.

Mr. Brittan: I can think of no more certain way to bring about economic disaster, if not collapse, than to carry out the policy recommended by the hon. Gentleman. He will recall that somebody who is not unsympathetic to the cause of general reflation estimated that if £4,000 million were spent on reflating the economy the effect would be to reduce unemployment by only 100,000, without taking into account the extremely dangerous consequences for interest rates and our monetary policy that such a policy would entail.

Stamp Duty

Mr. Moate: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the level of stamp duties on house purchase.

Mr. Lawson: Suggestions for reductions in stamp duty on house purchase are regularly received from both private individuals and representative bodies, especially during the period when Budget proposals are being prepared.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is no more justification for this tax on home ownership than there was for the tax on newspapers or on cheques? When my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor starts his regular discussions with me about his next Budget, will he give rather more priority to reducing the levels of stamp duty than he did in the last Budget?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend will recall that we substantially increased the threshold for stamp duty and general stamp duty levels, and therefore reduced the incidence of stamp duty on house purchase in the 1980 Budget. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend's representations about the 1982 Budget will be taken most seriously by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Nationalised Industries (Advertising)

Mr. Eggar: asked the Prime Minister if she will seek powers to control the advertising expenditure of the nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): It is not my present intention to do so. Most nationalised industry advertising is of an ordinary commercial kind. The exceptions can be pursued through other channels.

Mr. Eggar: Has my right hon. Friend noted the disgraceful advertising campaigns mounted by the British Gas Corporation and British Rail, which clearly have political rather than commercial objectives? Is she aware that the British Gas Corporation's present campaign will cost £2 million? Does she agree that that is an unacceptable use of taxpayers' money and will she take steps to claw back that amount through the cash limits system?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's distaste for some of the non-commercial advertising of both British Rail and British Gas, neither of which is commercial and which we believe in both cases was politically directed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made his views known to the board of British Rail and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs has made her views known to British Gas. I believe that this is a wrong use of public money.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the Prime Minister explain how she intends to advertise the sale and hiving off of the Royal ordnance factories to the private sector when they are the most important component of the logistics of our Army today? Are the Government seriously suggesting that the private sector of the arms industry can be trusted to keep our Army supplied if the hour of need comes again?

The Prime Minister: A considerable number of firms in the private sector supply defence requirement to our Armed Services. There would be nothing unusual in adding to that number.

Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is entirely right for British Airways to advertise for custom against other airlines, it is entirely wrong for it to use money to campaign for a fifth terminal at Heathrow and in doing so to be clearly against Government policy, as the Secretary of State for Trade has clearly stated that a fifth terminal should not be built at Heathrow?

The Prime Minister: The vast majority of advertising is commercial and is not only justified but necessary to get the business into the nationalised industries. I agree with my hon. Friend that anything other than commercial advertising is most undesirable.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Prime Minister accept that on the way here on the wretched railway line from Sheffield to London there are huge advertisements in the fields, painted in black letters on a white background, proclaiming "Choose Corby. It works"? Will she inquire who put those advertisements there—there are at least three of them—telling people to go to Corby because it works, when every hon. Member knows that the people of Corby are out of work and that the Government are doing nothing to put them into work?

The Prime Minister: Corby is an enterprise zone, and it seems to me that that is a legitimate advertisement.

Engagements

Mr. Chapman asked: the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation of Members of the Indian Parliament led by their Speaker.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend spend a little time considering the plight of those ratepayers in the Metropolis who will shortly receive supplementary demands? Is it not grossly iniquitous that London ratepayers should be required to subsidise the public transporting of millions of tourists who visit the City each year as well as hundreds of thousands of commuters from outside London who earn their living in the City? If the Government do not have the powers to stop these supplementary demands, will my right hon. Friend try to expedite alternatives to the rating system, which is a rotten iniquitous system?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is absolutely wrong that London ratepayers should have to subsidise tours taken on London Transport by tourists or many other people who come into London but who do not belong to London. There is already a grant of about £105 million from the Government, and in addition a large grant from the GLC is financed through the rates. I believe that most people will strongly object to paying large increased amounts for people who come from outside the Metropolis.
As to finding an alternative system to the rates, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will, I hope, be producing a consultative document before the end of the year.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Lady yet had a chance to study the speech of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and his suggestions that the policies of mass unemployment over which the Prime Minister presides help to breed crime and racial tensions? What does she think of that speech?

The Prime Minister: I did, of course, see reports of my right hon. Friend's speech. I note that most of my fellow Heads of Government at the European Council agree with the policies that we are pursuing. [Interruption.] It is extraordinary that Opposition Members should interrupt, because they were not present. Many of the Heads of Government are pursuing the same policies, and most of them agree that lower inflation will lead to more jobs. The question is not about the scourge of unemployment—we all agree that unemployment is a scourge—but rather what effective remedies can be found. We believe that we are going the right way to finding them.

Mr. Foot: How does the right hon. Lady think that her colleagues in Europe can understand a policy which the right hon. Member for Sidcup describes as "incomprehensible"? Does not the Prime Minister understand that she must answer to this House? What does she think of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? Following what the right hon. Gentleman and others have said on this subject, do the Government intend to proceed later this year with further public expenditure cuts which will lead to further unemployment, further racial hatred and further crime?

The Prime Minister: The Heads of Government in Europe understand the policy, because many of them are

pursuing identical policies. In other words, their top priority is to reduce inflation as a means not only of getting inflation down but of establishing a firm base to secure competitive industry and good jobs in the future.
I also note that the chairman of the IMF made a speech about policies similar to those that we are following in which he referred to the importance of monetary policy and the correct balance between monetary and budgetary policy. That speech very much approved the kind of policy that we are following.

Mr. Foot: Not enough.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may say "Not enough", but we are trying to reduce public expenditure——[Interruption.]—so that more finance is available for the private sector—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the Prime Minister's reply, and, as I said earlier, we must try to maintain parliamentary standards.

The Prime Minister: That is precisely why Opposition Members find the policy incomprehensible—because they will not listen.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady now say what President Mitterrand said about her policies?

The Prime Minister: President Mitterrand was the one person who was out of step—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may not like it, but that is the case. As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, President Mitterrand proposes to increase his deficit to an amount equal to 3 per cent. of GDP. Most of us, who already have deficits beyond that amount, could not possibly consider that policy. Our deficit is already 4½ per cent. of GDP.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the parliamentary rabble opposite have no recipes for Britain's economic revival? However, bearing in mind that we have an unprecedentedly large margin of spare capacity in men and material generally, and especially in the construction industry, is it not now possible to consider certain non-inflationary measures to revive the economy that would not lead to an increase in inflation?

The Prime Minister: I would dearly like to increase the proportion of public spending on public investment. Many of us would, because we think that that would be a far better way of spending some of the money than putting a good deal of it into increased pay. The fact is that the more that goes into increased pay without increased output the less there is to spend on public investment and the less there is available for more jobs. More pay without more output means more unemployment.

Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that the selective expansionary proposals of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) are recommended by many people in many parts of Britain, not least by the electors of Warrington—[Interruption.] If some hon. Members spent some time on the doorsteps of Warrington, they would discover that fact—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must listen to points of view that it does not like. That is what it is all about in this place.

Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister accept that many people believe that there is an alternative and that there is a case for selective expansionary investment in Britain that


has nothing to do with the hotch-potch of extravagant inflationary expansion peddled from the Opposition Benches?

The Prime Minister: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman and others who propose the creation of inflation on top of inflation, I happen to agree with John Maynard Keynes, when he said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know why the House is so excited this afternoon. I remind hon. Members that the clock is moving on.

The Prime Minister: I happen to agree with Keynes. He said:
There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose".

Petroleum Duty (Derv)

The following question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Gerry Neale: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet decided how to recoup the loss of revenue resulting from the reduction of the duty on derv; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The answer is "Yes". When, in Committee on 30 April, I advised the House to accept the reduction of lop per gallon in the taxation on derv, I made it clear that I would have to recoup the revenue lost in some other way. I should like now to inform the House how I propose that this should be done.
Although the Budget increases in tobacco duty were substantial, I have concluded that most of the extra revenue needed should come from that source. I therefore propose duty changes equivalent to an extra 3p on the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes, together with comparable increases on other tobacco products. These changes will raise about £65 million in the current financial year.
When the House considered these matters many hon. Members suggested that additional revenue should be raised from taxes on gambling. I propose three changes, which will together make up the balance of the offsetting measures: increases in the "off-course" rate of general betting duty from 7½ per cent. to 8 per cent. and in the bingo duty from 7½ per cent. to 10 per cent; and various increases in the rate of gaming machine licence duty. These changes will raise about £20 million in the current financial year.
Although I contemplated earlier that these changes would not take effect until after the Finance Bill had become law I have now decided that it would be better to bring them forward. I therefore propose that, subject to the approval of the House, the increases in tobacco duty should take effect on Wednesday 8 July, the increase in general betting duty on Sunday 12 July, and that in bingo duty on Monday 27 July. The changes in gaming machine licence duty must necessarily be delayed for practical reasons and will take effect on 1 October. The necessary resolutions will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. An amendment will be tabled for the Report stage of the Finance Bill enabling the derv duty change to take effect without delay; I am authorising the necessary extra-statutory treatment until Royal Assent. The duty on derv will thus be reduced by 10p a gallon from 6 pm today.

Mr. Neale: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the pleasure with which the road transport operators and those dependent on road transport will learn of that reduction? Is he further aware that those of us who supported the proposed reduction did so on the basis that the money would be recouped from elsewhere? We welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reply and think that it is the fair and right course to take.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and, in particular, for his acknowledgment of the benefit that this change will bring to road transport operators.

Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney and Poplar): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he is talking about one-tenth of 1 per cent. of total tax revenue? What

makes him believe, from his past experience, that such fiscal fine tuning is in any way available to a Government who overshot the public sector borrowing requirement by about £4,500 million last year and who are operating in a total statistical fog as a result of their stubbornness and obduracy?
Is not this statement an entirely political gesture on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's part? Is not this measure directed far more to his colleagues in between PESC exercises than to the real economy? Of course, we shall look at these trivial measures when time for debate is provided—as I hope it will be—next week.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would be quite foolish to view the necessity for changes in the total objective for public sector borrowing or taxation as if every error would work in one way rather than in another. When the changes were debated by the House on 30 April it was made perfectly clear that the resulting loss of revenue would have to be recouped in this way. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having undertaken to examine the measures.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear from the statement that hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate this matter. I shall therefore call two hon. Members from either side of the House before we move on to the business of the House.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some thought to adopting the suggestion of the Highlands and Islands Development Board that VAT should be removed from petrol and diesel oil in the Scottish Islands? The report of the Scottish Consumer Council shows, for example, that in the island of Barra food is 20 per cent. dearer than in Aberdeen and transport is 31 per cent. dearer. Such a measure could be easily policed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Question No. 4 on the Order Paper sought to ask the same thing. Although I understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman I am afraid that his suggestion would not be a practicable proposition.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Although I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for having adopted two of the suggestions that I made in Committee, but would it not have been preferable to undertake a reduction in public expenditure? The Civil Service has been cut by only 5·8 per cent. and the number of local government staff has been cut by only 2·2 per cent. since the general election. Should we not retrieve the money that way instead of by other methods, which increase the fiscal burdens?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are two ways of correcting the balance. One of those ways is by correcting the estimated tax revenue. That is the course that I have taken in my statement. However, the Government remain committed to securing the right balance and to securing the proper pattern of public expenditure as well.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of the major row that took place in Committee on capital transfer tax concessions in the Budget? Why did he not turn his attention to capital transfer tax and the major concessions that have been made to the better-off in society, instead of picking on cigarette smokers? Millions of working people will now have to pay higher prices.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is difficult to understand why changes that have been described as "trivial" by the Opposition spokesman on economic affairs should provoke such dramatic wrath from the hon. Gentleman. He should understand that changes in capital transfer tax—reversing some of the measures introduced by the
previous Government—form an equally important part of our policies for promoting enterprise and economic activity.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne (Knutsford): May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on reminding the House that there is no such thing as a free lunch or even a free lorry ride? So that we can effectively judge the proposal to increase tobacco duty, will he tell us whether, to date, the increase in tobacco duty contained in the Budget has generated the revenue that he expected?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As far as we can judge, there is no reason to doubt that the pattern of yield is in line with the yield that we were expecting. There was a period, immediately after the Budget, when demand fell. That followed a large amount of anticipatory purchasing before the Budget.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw vale): Will the Leader of the House make a statement about the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 JULY—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) Orders.
Ways and Means resolutions relating to tobacco duty, betting duty, bingo duty and gaming machine licence duty.
TUESDAY 7 JULY—Debate on the White Paper the United Kingdom Defence Programme: The Way Forward, Cmnd. 8288.
Lords amendments to the British Telecommunications Bill.
WEDNESDAY 8 JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Until about 7 o'clock, debate on an Opposition motion on regional policy, and afterwards a debate on an Opposition motion on higher education.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Forestry Bill.
Motions on the Antigua Termination of Association Order, and on the Furniture Development Council (Dissolution) Order.
THURSDAY 9 JuLY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: Debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Supreme Court Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY I o JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 13 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords].

Mr. Foot: I wish to put four matters to the right hon. Gentleman. First, will he provide time for a debate on the cuts in the BBC's external services? He will know that there is wide resentment about the present proposals If the Government intend to proceed with these absurd cuts, surely they will allow the House of Commons a chance to debate the matter.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when we shall debate the Government's directive, in respect of which there is a motion in my name, dealing with the British Gas Corporation's oilfield at Wytch Farm and the suggestion that it should be sold to the private sector?
[That the British Gas Corporation (Disposal of Wytch Farm Oilfield Interests) Direction 1981 be not made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th June.]
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that without the British Gas Corporation that field would not have been developed, and that there is strong feeling about the matter. I trust that there will be time at an early stage to debate the motion standing in the name of myself and some of my hon. Friends.
The third matter is another extremely important one. Will the Leader of the House tell us when we are to have a statement from the Secretary State for the Environment about the planning application by the National Coal Board to develop the Vale of Belvoir, in Leicestershire? It has been suggested that the Secretary of


State is to reject the inspector's recommendation. That suggestion is causing great anxiety, because the development is absolutely crucial to the future ability of the coal industry to supply the nation's energy needs. If there is any truth in the suggestion that the Secretary of State for the Environment is seeking to thwart the proposal and overturn the inspector's recommendation, may we at any rate have an early statement next week from the Secretary of State so that the House may have a chance to decide the matter, rather than the Secretary of State doing so behind our backs?
The final matter concerns a question that I have put to the right hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions. We want an undertaking from the Government that before the House rises for the recess we shall have a proper debate on the Brandt report and all the associated questions. The right hon. Gentleman replies to me each week. As it is such an important subject, the Government should provide the time so that we may know the Government's approach to it. At present no one knows, and a full debate is necessary for that purpose.

Mr. Pym: On a number of occasions I have responded to requests from the right hon. Gentleman on unemployment, textiles, and other matters, and it is obvious from the limited time that is available to any Government that I cannot respond positively to all his requests.
I appreciate that the question of the external services of the BBC is an important one, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, we are not making cuts in the amount of money that is available to the BBC. We are trying to improve the service by making it more audible. I am bound to say that I do not think that there will be time to discuss the matter.
If the right hon. Gentleman feels that his motion in relation to the British Gas Corporation is of sufficient importance it should be a candidate for debate in the time that is available to Her Majesty's Opposition.
The decision about the Vale of Belvoir is one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has to reach in his quasi-judicial position, as he does on all inquiries. He has to reach his conclusions on the basis of the evidence. I note that the right hon. Gentleman would like a statement next week. I cannot say exactly when my right hon. Friend will be ready to make his announcement. I can only say that he will do so as soon as he has reached his conclusion.
Finally, I am sorry that I cannot go further than I did last week on the subject of Brandt. The House has had a number of opportunities during the past 15 months, including one occasion this year, to debate this important matter. It is a question of finding time. Again, if the right hon. Gentleman feels that the matter is of sufficient importance perhaps he will consider providing the time. I cannot guarantee to provide time before we rise for the Summer Recess but, as I have said before and repeat today, I appreciate the importance of the subject. It is merely a question whether it can be fitted in before we rise.

Mr. Foot: No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of time that is available to an Opposition at this stage of our proceedings is very limited, yet a host of matters are coming forward on which the

Government are apparently seeking to make decisions that normally the House would insist on debating but that will be crowded out if the Government do not provide time.
I repeat what I said about the Brandt report. I expect the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on the matter next week, and I trust that he will give us the affirmative answer that we seek.
On the two other matters, the Secretary of State for the Environment may be acting in a so-called quasi-judicial capacity but he is responsible to the House on the matter, and this House of Commons will want to decide on a matter of such importance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.
The right hon. Gentleman altogether misunderstands the facts regarding the BBC external services. It is not merely a question of transferring services or saving money; it is a matter of cuts in the services. The right hon. Gentleman should understand that. He should understand, too, that there is opposition to it in many parts of the House and that we should therefore have a chance to debate it.

Mr. Pym: I understand the matter all right, but it is a question of finding time. In comparison with some of my predecessors—and, I dare say, even in comparison with the right hon. Gentleman himself—I have been quite forthcoming in providing time for requests legitimately and properly made by the Leader of the Opposition. If there is time we can fit in some of them but if not it will be difficult.
I think that I have correctly described the position of the Secretary of State for the Environment regarding his decision about the Vale of Belvoir. When he has come to his conclusion he will announce it. If he is not ready to do so next week it will not be announced next week. When it is ready—and, clearly, it will not be long delayed now—the Secretary of State will make a statement about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to allow business questions to go on until five minutes past 4 o'clock—that is 20 minutes, which should get everyone in—because a considerable number of hon. Members wish to speak on Northern Ireland.

Sir William Clark (Croydon, South): In view of the great public interest in index-linked pensions in the public sector, will my right hon. Friend say whether we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Scott report before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Pym: I am afraid that it will not be possible in Government time to do that.

Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath): I wish to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 501, which concerns the position of casual workers who have been dismissed from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea.
[That this House deplores the fact that casual workers, now dismissed from employment at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, Swansea, are being denied benefit by the Department of Employment or the Department of Health and Social Security who are treating them as parties to the Civil Service dispute; and calls upon the Government to take immediate action to end this persecution of innocent parties.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman bring this early-day motion to the attention of his right hon. Friends and arrange for


one of them to make a statement in the House next week to clear up the situation, which involves a great deal of injustice to these people?

Mr. Pym: I shall of course convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman said. I understand that the workers in question have a right of appeal against the decisions that have been taken. Therefore, I do not believe that a debate is appropriate. However, I shall certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): On the subject of the BBC's overseas services, does the Leader of the House recall that it was after a debate in the House that some of the cuts in languages were not proceeded with at an earlier date? What right do the Government now have to overturn that policy without a further debate in the House?

Mr. Pym: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's representations. It is a matter of time before we rise for the Summer Recess. We have to complete our legislative processes, Supply days, and so forth. I have taken careful note of what has been said by both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Julian Ridsdale (Harwich): Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say when the Secretary of State for the Environment will present his Green Paper on local government finance? Is he aware of the problems facing many councils and ratepayers? Will he promise a debate before the Summer Recess on this important matter?

Mr. Pym: I do not believe that that will be possible. My right hon. Friend is planning to publish a short paper soon, but the main paper about alternatives to the rating system will be published in the autumn.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline): Is the Leader of the House aware of the speculation in the Scottish press about the financing of the gas gathering system, which is probably the most important single investment to be undertaken by the United Kingdom? Will he persuade the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement in the House allaying the suspicion and fears, so that the project can go ahead?

Mr. Pym: I am prepared to consult my right hon. Friend on that point.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: In view of the great distress caused by the action of air traffic controllers and the grave danger that any stepping-up of their action will jeopardise the holidays of millions of people, will the Government consider carefully early-day motion 498, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and many others?
[That this House, being no longer prepared to tolerate the continuing inconsiderate behaviour of those air traffic controllers who are causing serious damage to British civilian aviation and severe inconvenience to the travelling public, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make alternative provision for this essential service.]
Will he also consider the amendment that I have tabled calling for early action to ensure that under emergency powers—similar to the powers that exist in other countries, including France, the United States and Germany—the Government are able to take the necessary

action to declare these strikes unlawful? Will there be an opportunity to debate this issue, either at the time of the introduction of such emergency legislation or otherwise?

Mr. Pym: I do not have it in mind at the moment to introduce further legislation. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Government will give consideration to the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and the amendment appended to it. I do not feel, however, that this is a matter for which the Government will be able to find time for a debate, although there may be other opportunities available to my hon. and learned Friend before the House rises.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central): In view of the fact that the Esso Oil Company seems to be threatening to withdraw from the £360 million investment project in Moss Morran, in Fife, unless it gets substantial tax and/or rate concessions, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement on the matter at the earliest opportunity, as this appears to be some form of bluff or blackmail by the company? In view of the increasing number of subjects that are obviously in line for debate, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will sit after the end of July if necessary?

Mr. Pym: I can give no assurance on the question when the recess may begin. It is too early to know when that may be. I am not sure whether a statement on the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raises would be appropriate, but I am prepared to consult my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Robert Atkins (Preston, North): I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) in his plea to my right hon. Friend about the state of British civil aviation as a result of the action of the air traffic controllers. My right hon. Friend will see that early-day motion 498 has the support of 70 of his right hon. and hon. Friends. We do not want the Government, in any shape or form, to give way to the air traffic controllers, but there are alternatives—using the Royal Air Force and/or International Aeradio or other private enterprise companies. This matter cannot continue much longer. The patience of the public is fast coming to an end.

Mr. Pym: I take note of my hon. Friend's representation. I accept fully that there is disruption and disturbance as a result of the strike by air traffic controllers who are not civil servants. The right course would be an end to the strike on the basis of what is a reasonable offer. The Government will consider alternative proposals. There are problems and difficulties about any alternative course, but the matter will be considered.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): In view of the shattering uncertainties caused to so many people employed in the defence industries by the proposed defence cuts, recently announced, not least in Marconi radar sites at Leicester, Gateshead and Chelmsford. will the right hon. Gentleman agree that one day is not sufficient to debate matters that vitally affect the constituencies of so many hon. Members? Adequate time must surely be provided to discuss what alternative work can be made available and what alternative strategy can be


devised to avoid breaking up invaluable design teams, created over a long period, at such places as the New Parks site in my constituency.

Mr. Pym: The day provided next week on the defence White Paper and the two days for Service debates are adequate for hon. Members to raise almost any matter, at any rate any important matter, in relation to defence.

Mr. Michael Latham (Melton): Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Ministers come to the defence debate prepared to deal with the matter effectively? Will he also confirm that there was a six months' inquiry into the Vale of Belvoir issue, at which all points of view were fully and fairly put and that it is open now for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to announce his decision, for which he then becomes responsible to the House?

Mr. Pym: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will come very well briefed to the defence debate. On the second matter, this was obviously a major inquiry. Very big issues are raised. I do not, therefore, think that it is a surprise to anyone that my right hon. Friend should take some time in reaching his conclusion. Indeed, he would be open to criticism if he did not go into the matter thoroughly before reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is intent on enforcing a retrospective cut in the budget of the Lothian regional council that totally undermines the right of the council to determine the level of service in the area and will lead to thousands of public service workers being made redundant in the region this year? If the Government persist with this policy, will the right hon. Gentleman at least ensure that hon. Members have a full debate and not the one and a half hour debate suggested?

Mr. Pym: If time permits I shall be content to do that. I am doubtful, however, whether time will be available. There are various ways in which this matter can be raised. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take advantage of those opportunities.

Mr. Chris Patten (Bath): Following my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks, can he give any indication when there is likely to be a debate on the Navy Estimates?

Mr. Pym: I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking on that matter. The second half of July is the best that I can do.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): May I reiterate the demand made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by our Liberal colleague that the House must have a chance to change the Government's mind about their intended cuts in the BBC language services? As he must know, there is considerable public and parliamentary disquiet about this intention.

Mr. Pym: If it does not prove possible for the Government to provide time, the Opposition might make available part of their time. That is the best answer that I can give.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Civil Service strike is causing anger and worry to many of my constituents whose

pensions are being withheld? Leaving aside the attitude and mentality of those who take action against the weak and the sick, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement to the House next week, particularly about discussions that he or other members of the Government may have had with the clearing banks to help my constituents and many others to overcome the temporary difficulties caused by the dispute?

Mr. Pym: It is extremely unfortunate and reprehensible that some members of the Civil Service should be withholding pensions from their ex-colleagues. My hon. Friend may wish to raise the second matter that he has put with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and also with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that it is likely that the Government will feel able to assist my hon. Friend in the way that he has in mind.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Before the debate on higher education will there be a statement on reports that five universities, including Stirling, in my constituency, have been told to cut student numbers by over 50 per cent? This proposal, combined with the effects of increased fees for overseas students, represents the most devastating blow against higher education by any Government in history. Does the Leader of the House agree with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that this kind of cut is absolutely disastrous and more damaging than the savings justify, or does he agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sell)/ Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) that the last Tory Prime—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not matter whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees. We are discussing next week's business.

Mr. Pym: I do not envisage a statement in addition to the debate announced for next week.

Mr. Tim Eggar: (Enfield, North): Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 455?
[That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its achievement in reducing the nationalised industry sector, and looks forward to the sale of shares in other nationalised industries, or where more appropriate, the hiving off of peripheral businesses, the abolition of monopoly powers and the introduction of more competition, since it is only in these ways that demands on public finance can be significantly reduced, efficiency improved and real costs to consumers minimised.]
The motion is signed by 159 of his right hon. and hon. Members. If we cannot have a debate on this important topic, when can we expect the Government to bring forward the necessary denationalisation measures?

Mr. Pym: I am afraid that I cannot put a date on it.

Mr. loan Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen the widespread reports that the House would today be hearing a statement on the university cuts? Is it right that such an important statement should be made in the form of a written answer to a planted question? Will a statement be made before the actual debate?
If the Government cannot give time for a debate on the Brandt commission report, will the hon. Members at least be made aware of the Government's views before the three international conferences that are to take place?

Mr. Pym: A written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend. the Secretary of State for Education and Science is an appropriate way to handle the matter. Another statement today would have delayed even longer a very important debate. That aspect of the matter has to be considered. One also has to take account of the fact that the House has been provided with an opportunity by the Opposition to debate the matter next week. That is a satisfactory outcome.
I am not sure whether it will be practical or appropriate to make a statement on Brandt before we rise for the recess. I am fully aware of the interest of the House in the matter.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough): Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to complete the Report stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords] on Monday 13 July, or to provide another subsequent day?

Mr. Pym: I have announced that progress on the remaining stages will be taken on 13 July, so the answer is that the Report stage will not be completed on that day.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the Vale of Belvoir is not good enough, inasmuch as the statement could, according to the press, be that the proposal for the Vale of Belvoir is turned down? Is he further aware that in our view that would necessitate a debate, so that we could test opinion here as well as testing the opinion of the Secretary of State? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that while it is a sensible decision for the Government to make in order to subsidise exports of British coal and to control imports of coal, the recent announcement makes as much good sense to ensure that those national coal assets that lie beneath the land of the Tory landowner, the Duke of Rutland, are fully exploited?

Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman and the House would be wise to await the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We can then consider the position. I have nothing further to add to my answer to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems and confusion that have been created for both consumers and traders since the emergence of credit card surcharges following the publication of the Monopolies Commission report? Will he take all possible steps to obtain a statement of the Government's policy—their acceptance or rejection of the report—before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Pym: I shall take that matter up with my right hon. Friend. I dare say that he has already considered it.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Will there be a statement on the report of the Monopolies Commission about the sale of The Observer to Lonhro? Is the Leader of the House aware that there is considerable concern and disquiet about this well-established newspaper being sold off to a commercial company such as Lonhro?

Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has been receiving certain representations this week, and in due course he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Shersby: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 336,
which has now been signed by 104 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, on the threat to Britain's invisible exports constituted by the UNCTAD liner code?
[That this House expresses its concern about the threat to Great Britain's invisible earnings constituted by the United Nations Commission for Trade and Development Liner Code and believes that the international trading operations in commodities conducted in the City of London amounting to about £200,000,000 a year is being seriously affected by countries invoking the code even before it is officially approved, and by the operation of cargo allocation centres; considers that the Liner Code may be the forerunner of a bulk code which could seriously inhibit the shipment of commodities from the developing countries traded in the flexible commodity and shipbroking markets in London; and therefore calls on the Government not to ratify the Liner Code until its long-term implications have been fully understood and debated in this House.]
Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, with a view to our having a debate on it, certainly before any consideration is given to ratification?

Mr. Pym: I am prepared to consult my right hon. Friend on that matter.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley): Will the Leader of the House assure us that a statement will be made orally, and not in answer to a planted question, such as that which was asked on Monday, on the reduction of quotas for British feature films, since a statement was promised by the Minister? In view of the shabby and underhand way in which the Minister reduced the quota of feature films from 30 to 15 without revealing the information to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the order that he placed last Tuesday will be debated on the Floor of the House and not sent upstairs to a Committee?

Mr. Pym: I note the hon. Gentleman's strictures. Again, I am prepared to consult my right hon. Friend. However, I am not sure that a debate would be appropriate.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington): May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 333—
[That this House recognises that the present terms of the British Nationally Bill will deprive ethnic Britons born overseas of the right to pass their citizenships on to their children born overseas and requests the amendment of the Bill so as to preserve that right during the lifetime of Britons born overseas before the commencement date.]
—and early-day motion 436—
(That this House regrets that, as presently drafted, the British Nationality Bill will retrospectively deprive some British subjects born overseas of the right to transmit their British Nationality; and urges the Government to amend the Bill to remove this retrospective element.]
—concerning the British Nationality Bill?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members are concerned about the provisions in the Bill that will deprive Britons abroad, who are Britons by descent under the Bill, of the right to pass their citizenship on to their children? Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and arrange for an appropriate amendment to be inserted in the Lords, so that by the time the Bill comes back to the Commons this injustice will have been removed?

Mr. Pym: As my hon. Friend knows, the House has debated the Bill almost exhaustively. It is now in another place, where no doubt it will also receive careful attention. In due course some amendments may come back for us to consider again. I do not think that I can go beyond that, particularly in view of the time that we took here in consideration of that important measure.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West): May we have a statement next week from the Attorney-General about his policy on the application of public funds to the various parties in "The Romans in Britain" case? Is he aware that if there are attempts to get round legislation passed by the House it is proper that the Attorney-General should come to the House and declare his prosecution policy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be absolutely wrong if the National Theatre, in defending its reputation, had to use those extremely limited public funds that are meant for the artistic procedures in this country, and not for expensive litigation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not quite sure at the beginning, but it became clear as the hon. Gentleman went along that he was dealing with a matter that I believe is sub judice. He no more than anyone would want to seek to influence the court in its decision. I should hope not, at any rate.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Since there is only one remaining hon. Member on either side wishing to ask a question, I shall call those two Members.

Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend take on board the fact that some hon. Members would like a discussion on the BBC's foreign services, either now or after the Summer Recess, before irrevocable decisions are made, so that we can influence whatever is done?

Mr. Pym: I note my hon. Friend's representations and the views that have been expressed during these exchanges.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): Is the Leader of the House aware of the great number of oral questions on trade that were lost last Monday due to the absence of Members? Will he tell the House how the negotiations are proceeding through the normal channels on the rearrangement of Question Time, whereby energy, trade and industry questions come later in the week?

Mr. Pym: I cannot say what progress has been made in that respect, but it seems to me that if hon. Members table questions and are not then present to ask them it is a matter for them.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move,
That this House approves of the Government's proposal to continue the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for further periods.
The format of today's debate is a bit different from usual, and I am glad that it is. We shall later be debating the order renewing the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the renewal of direct rule, though much of the ground will no doubt be covered in this debate. But at a time when the last two years show a general improvement in the security situation, now seriously threatened by disorder and violence associated generally with the prison protests, it seems to me right that before deciding on the orders before it later today the House should undertake a more general review of law and order and political development in Northern Ireland.
Let me begin with security. I must do so because, despite the beauty and peace of much of Northern Ireland, criminals still provide too frequent evidence of their perverted desire to kill, maim and destroy. It is that factor which distinguishes the task of maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Sometimes IRA propaganda would have the world believe that, uniquely in Northern Ireland, British Governments want to see emergency provisions in force. As I have said at every renewal of these powers since coming to my present office, I propose their renewal only because they serve an essential purpose in the prevailing circumstances. If the terrorists drop their campaign we can drop the emergency provisions. If they dislike these provisions, the remedy is in their hands. We are doing what we can to achieve normality.
With great courage and dedication, ordinary policemen are doing ordinary police duties in increasing areas of the Province. There has been a distinct change in the nature of Army operations over the past few years, and it now acts only in support of and at the request of the police. This change, difficult to handle, has been made without diminishing in any way the closeness of co-operation between the two forces. The fact that it has gone so well reflects the greatest credit on the RUC and the Army in Northern Ireland, and especially upon the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding. The people of Northern Ireland and this House owe them a great debt of gratitude—and so, on a more personal note, do I.
Let us look at the progress made and, I must say, the present threat to that progress, even though I am convinced that that threat will be overcome. The gradual decrease in violence, which began in 1977, continued over the succeeding four years, with the result that 1980, although far from peaceful, was the least violent year since 1971. There were fewer murders, fewer injuries caused by terrorist violence, fewer explosions and fewer shooting incidents than for 10 years. The first four months of 1981 saw a continuation of this generally downward trend.
Over the past two months the picture has been sadly different. The impending death of Robert Sands at the end of April was the signal for an outbreak of street violence, which continued until after the death of a fourth hunger striker on 21 May. Although spasmodic, and never as widespread as the media sometimes portrayed them, these outbursts became particularly intense on occasions and presented the security forces with a formidable problem. Moreover, they were accompanied by a fresh upsurge of terrorist violence in the form of shooting and bombing attacks, aimed in large measure at the security forces. Although the street violence has died down, the terrorist attacks continue. Over the past two months 27 people have lost their lives—more than in the preceding four months.
The people of Northern Ireland reacted, as always with fortitude and restraint, in the face of the provocation, intimidation and disruption which flowed from the street rioting. Their coolness and courage helped the security forces enormously in their unremitting efforts to contain and bring to an end the rioting, while continuing their pursuit of the violent law-breakers, who have no regard for the safety and happiness of the people of Northern Ireland. I pay public tribute to the immense skill, stamina and personal courage of the policemen and soldiers who, often facing a barrage of stones, petrol bombs, acid bombs and blast bombs, ended the riots with a minimum of force and disposed of the risk of far greater violence.
I do not believe that the events of the past couple of months are a permanent setback. I am sure that the security policy that has been followed by successive Governments over recent years is the right one. That policy is very simply stated—those who break the law will be dealt with according to the law. This applies to rioters, those who hijack cars, those who murder and those who maim. Since 1 March this year, 577 persons have been charged and a further 431 summonsed in connection with offences arising out of the rioting. Furthermore, in the first six months of this year alone, 472 people have been charged with terrorist-type offences.
I am convinced that this is the right and only way to tackle the violence. I can understand those who become frustrated that terrorist activities still go on and who cannot understand why the police and the Army do not use more drastic measures to stop the men of violence. But the bedrock of a free and democratic society is the fair and impartial enforcement of the rule of law by the security forces. One cannot uphold the rule of law by stepping outside it oneself. To do so would merely play into the terrorists' hands.
We must, of course, ensure that the police and the Army have all the necessary resources to enable them to combat those who seek to undermine our society. The Chief Constable and the GOC tell me that they are satisfied that at present they have all they need in the way of manpower and equipment to cope with all the situations that their forces have to face. But an essential part of their total resources is the legal powers with which they seek to maintain law and order.
It is for this reason that I shall ask the House today for the renewal of provisions that are still necessary to enable the security forces to do just that.
The House will recall that 12 months ago I thought it right to propose that the detention provisions of the Act should be allowed to lapse. I recognised during the debate on the Act last December that many hon. Members were concerned that, given the continued reduction in the level

of violence during 1980, I had no immediate proposals to allow other provisions to lapse. I scrutinise very closely the need for each of these provisions. I understand and share the concern of the House that the justification for them must be closely examined. There are various ways of achieving that. In present circumstances, the initial responsibility rests wholly upon me and my Department and then, when I bring to the House an order such as the one that we shall consider later today, the responsibility is Parliament's.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will move his amendment shortly, and of course I shall listen closely to what is said in support of it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will give a considered reaction in winding up this debate, when he has heard the arguments, but at present I am not persuaded that what is suggested in the amendment is a good idea.
Among the concerns that have been expressed recently is concern about the system of trial for terrorist offences in Northern Ireland, and notably about the absence of juries. I should like to say something on this in particular. The principal reason, in fact the sole reason, why this mode of trial was introduced for these cases was the intimidation of jurors. This was not just supposition; there are too many well documented cases of it. Regrettable as it may be, the plain fact is that nothing has happened to persuade not only me but the Chief Constable that this risk would be any less now than it was some years ago, when the provisions were introduced. I can conclude only that the reintroduction of juries in terrorist trials at present would be against the interests of justice.
Having said that, I want to emphasise that, notwithstanding the absence of a jury, the basic principles of the administration of justice hold good in the so-called Diplock courts as they do in any others. In particular, the defendant is tried in open court. This is no secret tribunal: the public and press are present and the press is free to report the proceedings fully. There are clear and fair rules of evidence. The onus of proof rests squarely on the prosecution, and, unlike in trials by jury, the accused has totally unfettered right of appeal. He can insist, if he wants, on having his case examined not just by one judge but by a total of four. These are substantial safeguards for the accused, by any standards.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham): Is it not right to say that the appeal is on the documents only and does not involve an oral hearing? Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having three judges for the trial? If he has difficulty in recruiting enough judges from the Province, will he consider bringing others from mainland Britain?

Mr. Atkins: I was going to make a very similar point. The unfettered right of appeal includes the right of appeal on fact, which I understand does not apply where there are juries. The Diplock court has one judge, but the appeal court has three. That was how I arrived at my total of four judges who can hear questions of fact.
If there were three judges in the court of first instance, I do not believe that the right of appeal would be unfettered, and I know of no country where that happens.
Let us be fair. We should all prefer to see 12 jurors. At present there are four judges. I want one day to return to the jury system for all offences in Northern Ireland, but,
as I have said, juries are open to intimidation in a way that, to their great credit, judges are not. I am afraid that I cannot advise the House that it is yet safe to go back to juries, as we all want to do, for the scheduled offences.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale): I share some of the opinions that the Secretary of State has just expressed, but does not he agree that the Government can take measures to enable the accused to be given an equal and fair opportunity at every stage of the judicial process? Accused people should have recourse immediately, during the first 72 hours of detention, to legal advice, which is now often withheld from them.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I do not know what the circumstances were a few years ago, but now such people have access to solicitors as of right after 48 hours, and every 48 hours, at the maximum. There can be no question of persons arrested, either under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act or the orders that we shall consider later being denied access to solicitors. That follows upon the Bennett report. It was one of the recommendations which I remember telling the House we had adopted 18 months ago or more.
When we talk about the fairness of the system of justice, it is perhaps worth remembering that those who have engaged in various forms of protest in the Northern Ireland prisons over the years have not been protesting their innocence of the crimes for which they have been convicted. Many of them, I regret to say, have boasted that they did the things for which they are in prison. Their protest continues to be not against the system of trial but in pursuit of political status.
When considering the case for the renewal of emergency provisions, I have considered, as I have to, the upsurge of violence which may accompany the deaths of other hunger strikers if they persist in their action.
If more hunger strikers die, I have no doubt that such deaths will be the occasion of demonstrations and violence, which will fuel the vicious circle of hatred and bitterness. The Government's position on the hunger strikes must now be quite clear to everybody. It has been the same since before the hunger strike which began last October, and I repeated it as recently as the day before yesterday in a public statement, which I have placed in the Library. A public statement of that sort is inevitably a rather impersonal document.
Let me say simply in a more personal way this afternoon what I stand for in this matter. I stand unequivocally for the rule of law. I want to see those who break the law arrested and brought before a court where the evidence against them can be tested openly; and if they are convicted of serious offences I want them to be put away in prison for the protection of the law-abiding public.
I accept that that is not an end to my responsibility. Indeed, that is the point at which my responsibility begins. Whatever crimes they have committed, I stand for the humane treatment of prisoners. Nobody who has seen the facilities available in Northern Ireland prisons can deny that, if only the protesting prisoners would use them, the facilities there, which have no parallel anywhere in Europe, are available to assist them to live a good and useful life when eventually they are released.
As far back as last October I said that the Government were committed to maintaining and improving the regime

in whatever ways practical and as resources allowed, provided such changes did not amount to conceding the substance of the political status which the prisoners have always demanded. I respect the continuing humanitarian interest of the Irish Catholic bishops and bodies such as the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace. I consider very carefully the opinions of such responsible bodies. I recognise the sincerity of their efforts.
Unfortunately, the intransigent statement of the Provisional Irish Republican Army only yesterday made it quite clear, in response to my own statement, what it is that those directing the hunger strike are seeking. They want acceptance of the five demands, which in their view add up to political status, and nothing less. There cannot now be any doubt in anyone's mind that this Government will not grant that, and will never accept that political motives justify violent crime. The European Commission of Human Rights, in its decision of June 1980 on this very question, put it succinctly. It found that the status of political prisoner was a status to which the prisoners were not entitled under national law, under the European convention or under existing norms of international law. Our stand against political status upholds a principle of international validity. And that, I believe, is why no Government in the free world have suggested, for one moment, that we should concede political status.
I know that I speak for the whole Government and, I believe, the whole House, when I say that none of us takes any pleasure in the prospect of further deaths by hunger strike. There has been enough violence in Northern Ireland already, without adding to it self-inflicted and pointless deaths. I applaud once again the forthright condemnation by the Irish Catholic bishops not only of the self-inflicted violence of those engaged in the hunger strikes but of those evil men outside the prison who play their part in directing these actions.
I urge the families of the hunger strikers, who are more closely in touch with opinion outside the prisons than their sons can be, to pass on what I believe to be the unanimous message of those with any concern for the future of the people of Northern Ireland. The Government will not grant what is being sought. The prisoners themselves may not realise that, and the cynical men who manipulate them certainly will not tell them. Out of parental duty, and in common humanity, parents, relatives and friends of the hunger strikers should tell them that any further deaths would be futile. They will not cause the Government to grant their demands but will merely be used by evil men as the pretext for further violence. I hope most earnestly that the prisoners engaged on hunger strike will bring their fast to an end.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): The sentiments that the Secretary of State expressed about the hunger strikes will win acceptance. He rightly quoted what the Catholic bishops said when they condemned the hunger strikers. We know that violence is being caused by the hunger strike as well as to those who are dying. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that short of giving political status—and there is no disagreement on that aspect—there is no way of making concessions by way of clothing and association which may finally resolve the crisis?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will remember that during last year, both before the European Commission of Human Rights reported and subsequently, we made a


number of adjustments to the prison regime. The adjustments were all improvements, I believe. Out of the 12 that we made, eight applied to the protesting prisoners who at that time were engaged either in the no-clothes or the dirty protest. We made improvements to the regime. Virtually none of them was accepted by the protesting prisoners.
I have said time and again that we want to maintain a good regime and to improve it where we can. However, every time that we have said that we have been met by those in charge of the hunger strikers with the statement that they are not interested in improvements in the regime. They want us to meet the five demands that will give them political status, and nothing else. They said that again yesterday.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I accept the point that my right hon. Friend is making, but does he agree that there is a danger of alienating moderate opinion in the Republic of Ireland that would not normally support the IRA by the apparent intransigence of the Government over the hunger strikers? [HON. MEMBERS: "In what respect? What rubbish."] In the light of that, although I realise that it is early days, how does my right hon. Friend propose to put over to the new Irish Government the points that he is making so well to the House this afternoon? Will he consider inviting members of the new Administration of Belfast so that they can see what conditions are like in the Maze prison?

Mr. Atkins: I agree that it is important that the new Government of the Republic and everybody else should realise the true position. If there is any intransigence—and there is—it is intransigence on the part of the prisoners. The Government have committed themselves to making improvements to the prison regime as and when they can. They have demonstrated their good faith in that regard. That has been met only with a total stubborness and refusal to move, except backwards.
It is worth remembering that only after we made the improvements to which I referred in answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) did the hunger strike begin. When we made the improvements we were met only with a backwards response.
I turn to the second of the two orders which we shall ask the House to approve later this evening.

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion): Can my right hon. Friend confirm that prison conditions under which most of the IRA prisoners are confined are very favourable compared with those that operate in most of our prisons on this side of the Irish Channel?

Mr. Atkins: I am not familiar with the inside of many prisons. I do not know about my right hon. Friend. My understanding is that the conditions in the Maze, partly because it is one of our most modern prisons, are better than any that obtain in the United Kingdom. I am told by those who have greater knowledge than I that that favourable comparison can be made with the whole of Europe.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe): I recall to the Secretary of State the visit of the three Members of the European Parliament to one of the hunger strikers. Afterwards one of them reported that he was informed that political status was not a sticking point. Did the right hon. Gentleman explore the possibilities that that report seemed to present to him?

Mr. Atkins: On that occasion the prisoner visited said "I am not talking about political status. I want the five demands." When the prisoners were asked what "political status" meant, they expanded it into five demands. They have never budged from that. They seek to be treated differently from other prisoners because they claim a political motive for their crimes. That is something that the Government will never concede, and I do not believe that any Government in the Western world would contemplate that for one moment.
I should now like to turn to the second of the two orders that we shall be asking the House to approve later this evening—the interim period extension order, which continues the provisions for direct rule in Northern Ireland for a further 12 months.
Let me say a word about "direct rule" as it has existed since the end of the power-sharing Executive in 1974. I have found a great many people in the Province who approve of it. They believe that it has served the Province well and are not at all convinced that it ought to be changed.
I, too, believe that the system has worked well over the past seven years. It provides a Government acting with the authority of Parliament here at Westminster, with a Secretary of State in the Cabinet and a Civil Service which, while preserving its own identity, works closely with and is able to draw upon the experience and resources of the far larger administrative machine in the rest of the United Kingdom. Above all, I believe that it is generally regarded in Northern Ireland as being fair between one section of the community and another. Successive Governments in Northern Ireland have been heavily criticised for what they have done or not done—of course they have—but none of the criticism that I have heard accuses us of having the sectarian bias that earlier central and local authorities were alleged to have in the past. However, the 1974 Act always envisaged that those arrangements would be temporary—hence the necessity to renew them today.
Furthermore, all the political parties in Northern Ireland—not just some, but all—have been seeking for seven years an alternative way of running the Province. That is why successive Governments have made the most serious and comprehensive attempts to find a way forward that commanded general acceptance. That is why, as the House will remember, I convened a conference in the early part of last year to which I invited the main Northern Ireland political parties to establish what was the highest level of agreement between them as to how we should proceed.
We found out. We found that the level of agreement was nowhere near high enough to enable me to invite the House to pass legislation setting up a new system. I think that it is true to say that there was a genuine feeling of regret in the House and outside that this opportunity—which was real and from which there was much to be gained—was not taken. One party refused to come and those who did found themselves unable to move from their entrenched positions. No one in Northern Ireland can be said to have gained from the refusals. However, in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, it is no good looking back. We must look to the present and the future, and not to the past. One opportunity has been missed. We must look for another.
In the first place we must build upon one positive achievement of the last year. The development of relations


between this country and the Republic of Ireland has been of great value. Everyone knows that in certain areas there is a community of interst between our two countries. We in the United Kingdom, including of course Northern Ireland, cannot be untouched by events in the Republic, any more than the Republic can have no interest in what happens in the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland.
Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Mr. Haughey in Dublin last December we have been actively developing the unique relationship that has always existed between us. In matters of trade, transport, energy, and agriculture there are links between us. In security we face the common enemy of terrorist violence. In European and world affairs, though some of our interests may diverge, our basic philosophy is much the same. Our economies face the twin evils of inflation and unemployment.
The past seven months have, I am sure, been of real and lasting value to both countries. One thing that we have not sought to do is to negotiate the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. Despite all the scaremongering, that accusation has not been made to stick. Indeed, I think that there is now a general and an accurate understanding and sympathy throughout the British Isles for the objectives of our efforts—to improve relations between two countries that are historically, geographically and economically inextricably linked, and between which misunderstandings are not only undesirable but positively dangerous. I am sure that I have the House's endorsement of our hopes that we can with profit continue this process with the new Government in Dublin.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough): Does my right hon. Friend agree that possibly one of the reasons for the misunderstanding about the discussions is that they they have been cloaked in secrecy? If they are to continue, does he not agree that it would be a good idea—if there is nothing to hide and they seem to be admirable discussions—that there should be a sensible statement after each discussion?

Mr. Atkins: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what has happened. On the last two occasions that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met, in May and December last year, a statement was issued. In between, officials get on with the work that they have been charged to do. I do not think that there is much benefit in the publication of notes between officials, minutes, suggestions, and so forth. Surely what matters is that when Heads of Government and Ministers meet to make decisions, those decisions should be public and open to question—in our case in the House. That is what will happen. I agree with my hon. Friend that the negotiations between the Heads of Government must not be conducted secretly—they are not and will not be.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South): In the light of what the Secretary of State has said, what was the point that Mr. Fitzgerald was making?

Mr. Atkins: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman asks Mr. Fitzgerald, because I do not know. I have not talked to him.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York): What have the officials been discussing, because that has not been made plain?

Mr. Atkins: It has been made quite clear. They have been discussing the areas set out in the communiqué of 8 December, issued after the meeting of the two Heads of Government. It seemed to the two Heads of Government that in those areas it might be profitable to consider whether relations between the two countries could be improved. The officials have been doing that. They are still doing it. They will report to the respective Heads of Government who will consider the reports, meet again and, if they decide that those are the right areas and we should proceed in that way or that there are other areas which would be valuable, they will announce it and will be subject to questioning about it. That is the sensible, proper and normal way in which Governments discuss matters between each other.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State not think that one of the reasons why there may have been confusion—which, I think, was the word he used—about what was taking place in the Dublin talks was the statements made by the leaders of the Republic of Ireland that—statements that were not refuted by the Secretary of State or the Government—alleging that constitutional matters were under discussion?

Mr. Atkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the credit of acknowledging that I have repeatedly said—I said it about three minutes ago—that we are not negotiating the future of Northern Ireland. I have said that time and again, and I am happy to repeat it now. That is not a matter for discussion or negotiation.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I agree with some of the things that the Secretary of State has said and repeat what I said earlier. There are some areas of concern. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to normal discussions and questioning in the House, does he not realise that following the 8 December meeting no full statement was made? What headings is he talking about? What are the officials discussing at present? What areas are they examining? What reports is the right hon. Gentleman expecting? It is not too late to tell us.

Mr. Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman has studied the communiqué he will know that they are considering the areas set out in it, which have been agreed between the two Heads of Government as areas which they might profitably explore. No decisions have been taken about what should flow from any papers or any submissions from officials. That will be for the next meeting, after which any decisions taken will be made known to the House in the usual way. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to say what they think about them.
We need to ask ourselves whether it is right simply to rest where we are, with the existing system of direct rule and discussions with Dublin, which do not embrace constitutional matters, or whether we should consider alternative possibilities. Let me make one thing crystal clear. We shall not be influenced by what I can only call the doctrine of despair that we hear from certain quarters at the present time. Just because there is no easy answer and the going gets rough, we shall not give up—in Northern Ireland any more than anywhere else. We are certainly not going to cut and run, leaving the citizens of Northern Ireland, the vast majority of whom want nothing more than to get on with their daily lives in peace and quiet, without the services and protection that they deserve and need.
Nor shall we daily with the idea of redrawing the borders of the Province. Anybody who knows the distribution of population in Northern Ireland also knows how futile—as well as unprincipled and unjust—repartition would be. It would exacerbate, and not resolve, the problems.
During the two years that I have held this office I have come to understand with great clarity that the difficulties that Northern Ireland faces are long-standing, deep and complex, and can be solved only by patience, determination, and dedication. That is as true now as it ever has been. It has shaped our approach since coming into office. It will continue to do so. To allow frustration and impatience to determine our policies would be the utmost disservice to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe it to be of prime importance that hon. Members should not allow themselves to be infected by the call for glib, simple solutions which would not answer the real questions that we face in Northern Ireland.
I do not conclude that we should simply sit on our hands and do nothing. I have never made any secret of my view that direct rule as it exists today, while it has the many advantages that I spoke about earlier, nevertheless contains one major flaw—there is not enough of a Northern Ireland political input into the governing of the Province. Of course there are the 12 representatives of Northern Ireland in this House, but they, like Ministers, face the twin difficulties both of the range of subjects with which they must concern themselves and of geography. A Northern Ireland Member of Parliament has to represent his constituents here, as we all do, but he has also to do the job of a county councillor and much of the work that would be done in England and Wales by a borough or district councillor. Much of the latter involves contact with authorities in Belfast, Londonderry or wherever, and the impossibility of being in two places at once is a handicap that none of us can overcome.
Our exhaustive discussions during the past two years with Northern Ireland political parties have driven me to the conclusion that it is not yet possible to confer executive or legislative powers upon a representative Northern Ireland body. A body exercising such powers must be acceptable to both parts of the community. The basis for that acceptability still does not exist. We must, therefore, consider—as was foreshadowed in paragraph 64 of our last White Paper, Cmnd. 7950, and as I indicated in my speech to the House a year ago—a more gradual approach, under which a representative body can be set up which does not at the outset possess such powers.
We need that body as a matter of urgency. There is a pressing need to re-engage people in Northern Ireland in political matters and in the bread-and-butter, social and economic issues that most directly affect people's lives. But if a new body were to be directly elected it would need legislation and then elections. That would impose a long delay, possibly of 18 months. I want to move more rapidly than that.
I therefore intend to proceed without legislation and to set up, by administrative act, a representative Northern Ireland Council which, at least initially, will be composed of persons already elected by the voters of Northern Ireland to other representative bodies—to this House, to the European Parliament, and to the 26 Northern Ireland district councils. In the coming weeks and months I intend to carry forward detailed arrangements for setting up that

new council, which I hope will convene about the end of the year. As part of that process I shall wish to have discussions with representatives of the Northern Ireland political parties. I shall want to take account of their comments in framing the details.
Following that, I intend to present my final proposals to Parliament in an appropriate form so that there will be an opportunity for the House to consider them. However, it may be helpful if I give the House a general outline of the kind of body I have in mind.
I envisage a council composed of perhaps 50 representatives from the elected sources that I have already mentioned—Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, district councillors. I intend to invite people to serve after seeking nominations from the Northern Ireland political parties which have been shown in recent elections to have a substantial following in the Province. Each party will be asked for a specific number of nominations related to their electoral strength. I shall provide appropriate facilities to meet at the Parliament buildings, Stormont. It will be for the council to decide upon its own procedures, including the question whether it should deliberate in public. Members of the council, invited to serve on that basis, will be paid an attendance allowance.
As I have said, these are outline proposals. I want to discuss the details with the parties during the coming weeks.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The Government are about to embark upon a foolish move by creating a body that will be regarded as a body of castle Catholics, paid to acquiesce in Government decisions, without having the power of the vote of the people in Northern Ireland. It is possible to have an election for a proper democratic party. The Secretary of State has power to end some of the divisions in the community in Northern Ireland by getting rid of the religious apartheid that exists in education, at the taxpayers' expense in schools and in training colleges. He has shied away from that problem. The Government are tinkering with the situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman has much to say. He has made his comment. No doubt he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
While not exercising executive or legislative functions the council will perform a positive role in a number of areas. Let me itemise three. First, I shall invite it to consider and report to me on the activities of the Northern Ireland Government Departments which cover the range of matters transferred under the Constitution Act 1973. I shall expect it to report on specific matters that I refer to it. I shall make relevant information available to the council, which I think might with advantage form representative functional committees to deal with particular tasks.
Secondly, I shall invite the council to scrutinise proposals for legislation affecting Northern Ireland so that I and my colleagues can take account of it before laying draft legislation before Parliament. I have already settled procedures for consulting interested people—who better to consult on political matters than political representatives? Naturally, the decisions on legislation will continue to be taken here.
Thirdly, I shall invite the council to consider the future government of Northern Ireland and what proposals for the exercise of executive powers and legislative powers by elected representatives might prove to be acceptable to both parts of the community in the Province.
As the House will recognise, in all aspects of its role the council will be advisory—not executive or legislative. Naturally, I would, when appropriate, take account of its advice when coming to Parliament with its proposals. I shall take account of its advice in whatever area I operate. In doing so, I would attach, as Parliament would attach, special importance to advice that was unanimous or, failing that, commanded widespread support from representatives of both parts of the community. The advisory council would be encouraged to adopt procedures that made it clear to what extent its views commanded such support. But, as I said before, responsibility for all legislation would rest with Parliament, and I would remain responsible to Parliament for the direction and control of the Northern Ireland Departments in the discharge of their executive functions.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I recollect the right hon. Gentleman saying that he intended to proceed by administrative action and not by introducing legislation. Surely something as important as this merits at least a day's debate in the House.

Mr. Atkins: I am announcing how I seek to proceed. I have given the House an outline of the role and composition of the council. I repeat that I shall have consultations with the political parties in Northern Ireland over the next few months. Following those consultations I shall return to the House with detailed proposals, which I shall ask the House to approve. The precise manner in which that will be done is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House than for myself. However, it is essential that the scheme should proceed only with the authority and backing of the House. I do not think that it will be possible to bring the detailed proposals before the House until the autumn.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Earlier the right hon. Gentleman referred to the communiqué that was issued following the Dublin talks between the Heads of Government. He referred to heads of discussion that were being pursued by officials, with ministerial guidance. I presume that the discussions include possible institutional changes between the two countries. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention—does he accept this as a desirable possibility—that the consultative council, if that is the right phrase to use, will be brought in on some of these discussions? Will it have any contact with the discussions on institutional changes?

Mr. Atkins: It will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that I said that, apart from examining the way in which Government Departments work, I shall ask the council to consider other matters that are referred to it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one of the other matters that it would be proper to consider referring to the council.

Mr. James Dempsey: Will the council that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to establish as a representative body of both communities be purely advisory and not an executive body?

Mr. Atkins: That is correct.
The House may wish that we could move faster and further now but we have to temper hope with realism. Given our experience over the past two years and the constraints that we have to recognise, I believe that we are proposing a sensible, reasoned way forward. We are keeping faith with the principles that we have enunciated consistently since coming to office, and we are building on the foundations painstakingly laid over two years.
I can only say again what I said at this time last year. We are offering an opportunity. Once again the Government are prepared to do all they can to build upon this opportunity as a way forward. It is now for others to respond.
In the meantime direct rule will continue, fairly, efficiently and as responsive as we can make it to the demands and needs of the Northern Ireland people. That is essential for the time being. But I hope that from here we can move to a point, one day, when the renewal of the direct rule provisions that we shall have before us later tonight is no longer required because new, stable governmental institutions have been established and accepted in Northern Ireland that are acceptable to both parts of the community.
I have been speaking about the motion on the Order Paper, which asks for the approval of the House to continue two temporary laws, the one for six months and the other for 12. But the future of Northern Ireland, like its past, is a great deal longer than that. There are a great many people with a great many ideas about what that future should be. I dare say that we shall hear some this afternoon. It is certain that we shall hear a lot in the coming weeks and months, including, I fear, contributions from some people who know next to nothing about the Province today and, indeed, in certain cases, have never even been there.
Everything that happens in Northern Ireland touches us here in the House very closely indeed. But we are all democrats, and when we take decisions, large or small, we want to know—and take pains to find out—the reactions of those whom our decisions will affect most directly.
It is for that reason that I commend to the House the establishment of the Northern Ireland Council that I have just outlined. It will enable the people of Northern Ireland, through representatives that they have elected, to have a greater influence on the governance of their own Province than they have at the moment and it will enable us, when taking decisions about Northern Ireland, to be even better informed about representative views there than we are now.
I invite the House to give its approval to the approach that I have outlined by voting in favour of the motion.
4.56 pm

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`agrees that it is time for a wide-ranging inquiry into the workings of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978'.
It is with regret that I speak on the renewal of the direct rule and emergency powers for Northern Ireland. It is a source of continuing disappointment to me and to many others in the House that the troubles in Northern Ireland are still with us. I regret that no political process has been found to bring the conflict to an end. I join with the Secretary of State in welcoming the format of the debate.
When the renewal orders came before the House previously the Opposition had to accept them as they were and there was no opportunity to amend them. The right hon. Gentleman knows that on this occasion we would have found ways and means of putting the amendment before the House even if we had been presented with the old format. However, the present format meets with our approval.
The Opposition are aware of the necessity for these measures, but we reaffirm that they will not remain on the statute book for one minute longer than is necessary. The debate takes place in a climate of deepening concern, throughout the country and around the world, about Northern Ireland. That is not new. Paragraph 11 of the Gardiner report, which was published in 1974, states:
The presence of influential communities of Irish descent in many parts of the English-speaking world means that a number of Britain's allies and Commonwealth partners have a keen interest in the stability of communal relations in Northern Ireland. Yet some of these same Irish communities have themselves helped to sustain violence there by their support for para-military organisations.
I pay tribute to all our security forces for the work that they have undertaken and for the tolerance that they have shown over the years in Northern Ireland. In a written answer that appeared on Monday we were able to read the names and ranks of the British soldiers that have been killed or mutilated in Northern Ireland. The answer spread over three or four pages.
We must recognise that there are many others in Northern Ireland to whom we should pay tribute. There is considerable unemployment in Northern Ireland but many workers continue to go to work and to go about their daily business. There is still too much violence in Northern Ireland, although the figures are decreasing.
My recent visits to Northern Ireland and my daily postbag have led me to conclude that it is essential for a new initiative in the Province. The politics of extremism and fear will thrive as long as there is a political vacuum. There are two substantive issues before the House. These issues are the extension of direct rule for another 12 months and the renewal of emergency powers for another six months. The amendment calls for a wide-ranging inquiry into the emergency powers. We have reason to believe that they are a real and continuing source of grievance and friction. In that regard, there is an urgent need for an independent review. In many other ways, our amendment provides a bridge between the two issues. It poses certain questions about the manner in which direct rule should be operated and requires the Government to account for their actions or inactions before the House.
Before I move on to the Opposition's case for a review I shall concentrate the attention of the House on the issue of direct rule and explain why the Opposition have agreed, with a number of reservations, to have the order extended for another 12 months. I am sure that I am expressing the thoughts of many hon. Members when I say that we deeply desire a resolution to the conflict in Northern Ireland and an end to the sickening violence of the last 12 years. However, there is still the question which was first posed in the summer of 1969: how best can that conflict be resolved?
The Opposition do not accept the notion that immediate withdrawal either of a political or of a military nature would best serve the ends of peace. The events of recent months have so galvanised opinion on Northern Ireland that I sometimes wonder whether we are back in the early

1970s. There is a marked difference, however, between the tenor of opinion in 1971 and 1981. I detect a new sense of urgency and hastiness which we in the House should be careful to guard against. Many people in mainland Britain are becoming frustrated with the polarised politics in Northern Ireland.
While some people have expressed their frustration in renewed calls for humanitarian and rational resolution to the hostilities, others have adopted the mantle of all human wisdom and have come forward with neat sounding, one-line solutions to the problems. It do not doubt the sincerity of those who have promulgated such ideas, yet I am afraid that many are ill-thought-out and, if implemented, might result in suffering and tragedy on a scale which is frightening to contemplate. For those who say that the situation cannot become any worse, let me assure them that it can. It can become a lot worse.
I cannot believe that by replacing the Army with a United Nations force or a workers' militia, or by unilaterally pulling out of Northern Ireland, we shall promote peace or stability in the Province. The deep-seated differences between the communities there would never be resolved by taking an india-rubber to the map of Ireland and trying to move or erase the border. At the end of the day the physical border is not the real issue. It is the border in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland to which we must address ourselves. There is little scope for the map maker in such a delicate conflict of national identity.
For the present, we do not seek an immediate available alternative to direct rule. The options for the Province's future that have captured headlines in recent weeks have tended to telescope out of sight the real problems which continue to exist in Northern Ireland. Where two communities are divided by culture and religion as well as by political sympathies, as they are in Northern Ireland, no easy settlement of discord is possible.
The problem is further compounded by a history of distrust and suspicion which permeates most contact between the communities. Superimposed on this is the continuing activity of terrorist groups that try to manipulate the population by the tactics of fear and intimidation. There cannot be an easy or swift answer to such a complex problem. If anyone thinks that there is, he is living in a fool's paradise. Direct rule is, for now, the only realistic option for the government of Northern Ireland. However, we do not believe that the lack of ocher realistic options should lead to complacency about direct rule. It is not now, nor has it ever been, an answer to the problems of Northern Ireland.
In 1972, when direct rule was first introduced, it was regarded as an interim measure pending some other arrangement for the stable government of Northern Ireland. That other arrangement has proved elusive. I need hardly remind hon. Members that successive Governments have tried and failed to find agreement between the two communities that would lead to a form of government acceptable to both sides.
After the abortive talks last summer, we should ask some probing questions about the purpose of direct rule and about the obstacles that stand in the way of the settlement that will bring peace to that strife-ridden province. It must first be acknowledged that there are elements in the equation of failure other than successive British Governments. Without question the continued campaign of violence in Northern Ireland is a major


obstacle in the way of co-operation. It generates fear and drives an even deeper wedge between the communities, which are already divided on so many issues.
There is no doubt that violence has seriously undermined all attempts to find a peaceful settlement. We reiterate our view that the bomb and the bullet must never be allowed to overrule the democratic process. We believe that it is legitimate to work through the process of political persuasion for a united Ireland, a Northern Ireland integrated with the United Kingdom, or even a sovereign Northern Ireland. However, we can never tolerate the use of violence for political ends.
There is another obstacle in the way of political change that should not be allowed to escape our notice. I am speaking of the intransigent position adopted by certain Northern Ireland politicians who advocate a return to majority rule in the Province and refuse not only to compromise but even, on occasion, to talk. It is fruitless for certain political groups in Northern Ireland to demand a return to the old Stormont regime and nothing else. They must come out from behind the constitutional guarantee and start talking about ways of finding an agreed settlement. Such a settlement can be best achieved under the aegis of aggressive and positive direct rule while looking forward with imagination rather than being bogged down in the slogans and failed experiments of the past.
I should like to say a few words about the constitutional guarantee. That guarantee, enshrined in the Ireland Act 1949 and reiterated on numerous occasions since, recognized the logistics of the situation. It recognised that the mass of the population could not be forced to accept constitutional change to which it had not consented. That is the real guarantee. It was not intended to be used as a veto on political discussion and should not be abused as the excuse for political stagnation on the part of the majority. Any guarantee should operate in two ways. It is a reciprocal arrangement, in which there are givers as well as takers. In this case the 50 million or so guarantors who live in Britain have every right to expect reasonable and positive political behaviour on the part of politicians in Northen Ireland. Every time they see unreasonable or negative behaviour—the antics of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) must be included in that bracket—those people lose confidence and interest in Northern Ireland.
The time may come when we will have to look again at the written guarantee with a view to widening its ambit. Perhaps a formal recognition of the aspirations for dual nationality of the people of Northern Ireland would be no bad thing. We should think of guaranteeing the rights of the minority community as well as those of the majority. Whatever changes are eventually made, we in the House must not allow the guarantee as it stands to be used as an excuse for doing nothing. After two years of Tory rule in Northern Ireland, the time has come to stand back and consider how that rule should be operated and to question the purpose behind its continuation. We believe that it should work on two distinct—

Mr. Tom Benyon: In view of the doubts expressed about the Labour Party's policy for the Province as identified in The Times leader today, can the right hon.
Member say categorically that that policy has nothing in it that would amount to a denial of self-determination for the majority in the Province?

Mr. Concannon: I can do that now if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I have had to listen to a heck of a lot of pontification about Northern Ireland over the last two or three months, so I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall not miss the opportunity of having my word today on certain issues. If he cares to wait, I am sure that I shall come to the point that he raised.
I was dealing with the operation of direct rule. I accept that it should be worked on two distinct but complementary levels. The first involves the creation of channels likely to lead to a settlement of the conflict, and the second centres on influencing conditions of day-to-day life in Northern Ireland, so that when a settlement is eventually achieved it will have a solid base on which to flourish.
On the wider political level we recognise that the Secretary of State has sincerely tried to bring the parties in Northern Ireland to some form of common agreement in the most adverse circumstances. That is why I do not condemn what he has put before the House. We shall have to consider it seriously, and I trust that he includes the Opposition among those whom he is to consult. I hope that we can debate the issue and reach a conclusion. I welcome any genuine attempt to improve the government of Northern Ireland, and I wish the proposal luck.
We also welcome closer co-operation between London and Dublin, which has been a recent feature of Government policy, but we sincerely hope that the Government will not allow suspicion and mistrust to ferment by refusing to come clean on what the talks are about. Hon. Members have every right to know the meaning and tenor of the talks. We hope that it will be possible for the people of Northern Ireland and hon. Members to contribute to the important debate in a wider Anglo-Irish context. I am glad that in his speech the other day the Taoiseach said that that was one of his intentions. I hope that it is also the intention of the Government.
Over the past 18 months the Labour Party, too, has focused its attention on the problems of governing Northern Ireland. A special study group was set up to make policy recommendations to the conference in the autumn. I cannot pre-empt conference decisions, but the group, of which I and several other hon. Members are part, has left no stone unturned in the search for a workable policy on Northern Ireland. We have taken evidence from within our movement and from groups and individuals in Northern Ireland. Discussions have been held with a wide variety of organisations from North and South of the border. We hope by the end of the year to have a clear and credible policy on Northern Ireland to put before the House and the people of the Province.
It is by now almost common knowledge that the group's thinking reflects the long and deeply held belief in the Labour Party that Ireland should, by peaceful means and on the basis of consent, be united. However, I admit that the group's recommendations have a long way to go before they can be accepted as an authoritative policy statement, and I am not now in a position to expand further. Suffice it to say that we do not have and will not acquire any illusions about the difficulties of implementing such a policy. Too many of us on the study group have experience of working in Northern Ireland to believe that the task will


be easy. We realise that changes in the Northern Ireland constitution cannot be made without the consent of those who live there, and we must win that consent.
After nine years of direct rule it is high time that the political parties in this country stated their intentions about Northern Ireland openly and clearly and said how they view the most satisfactory long-term settlement. The Labour Party will soon be in a position to do just that, and I hope that the other parties will follow our lead.
In the meantime, direct rule will remain, and it is within the context of the second level of direct rule—the day-to-day government of the Province—that I intend to raise the question of an inquiry into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In response to a question from the Conservative Benches the right hon. Gentleman said that the principle of self-determination was fully accepted. If the Labour Party fully accepts the principle of selfdetermination—the belief that a majority part of the United Kingdom can determine to remain part of the United Kingdom—how is it possible for the Labour Party to propose as an objective of party policy a different answer?

Mr. Concannon: The right hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun. It is not yet party policy. There are a few hurdles still to go. Things do change. The study group is not thinking of change tomorrow, next week, next month or next year. I said that within a framework we must work towards winning over the people of Northern Ireland. It is a question of winning people's hearts and minds. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have some experience of Northern Ireland. I know what a task it will be, but it is the Labour Party's long established view that peace and stability will come to Northern Ireland once the disparity that the border brings is removed.
I said earlier that the border is not just a line on the map. It did not take me long to find out that it exists in people's hearts, and that is the problem that the Labour Party will have to tackle.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's response. He says that the Labour Party will set itself to the task of winning hearts. In view of the objective that it puts before it, its objective is to win the hearts of the majority in Northern Ireland against membership of the United Kingdom. That must be so.

Mr. Coneannon: The right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. I said that we should have to win the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland. I did not say anything about the majority or minority. We are thinking about the long-term future. I do not see the situation staying as it is today. I hope that people of the Province accept that there can be movement. I also believe that Dublin has a part to play. It is no good saying that the matters to be discussed are on the table. Dublin and the British Government must spell out their intentions for the whole of Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Party would work to persuade the Ulster people to leave the United Kingdom and to join the Irish Republic in a United Ireland. Does he realise that such statements are bound to create instability and tension and give a spur to the Provisional IRA terrorist campaign to coerce the people of Ulster to come out of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman is also putting words in my mouth. I was careful about what I said. To hear him talk, one would think that I knew little of Northern Ireland. I have much greater knowledge of the situation than many hon. Members. I know the difficulties, and I know that certain things that are said may be picked up and wrongly used. That is why, within the study group, I have been assiduous in making known the problems, so that it cannot be said that we are helping the IRA. My credentials in the matter should not be questioned. The hon. Gentleman could possibly accuse others but never myself.
The hon. Gentleman says that we should continue the search for peace and stability. We should certainly not give the IRA the veto. We should progress towards stability and peace along the lines that I suggest, which does not mean that we are giving the IRA the veto.

Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman's courage and character are beyond question inside and outside the House.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Speaker: It is out of order to have another interruption before the right hon. Gentleman has replied to the first.

Mr. Dunn: With respect, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend had replied.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear a word that he said in reply to the other intervention.

Mr. Concannon: I shall merely thank the hon. Gentleman and accept what he has said. I think that on reflection he has taken my' point.

Mr. James A. Dunn: This cannot be allowed to go without challenge. On the basis of what my right hon. Friend has said and the questions that he has been asked, is it not also in his mind, and has it not also been put to him, that many of us believe that this is not a matter to be left to the sole decision of Northern Ireland? It is a United Kingdom matter and all the citizens of the United Kingdom should pass judgment on it.

Mr. Concannon: I believe that when I referred to the guarantee, I said that there were 50 million guarantors also looking for progress in Northern Ireland.
Britain has nothing to be proud of in her record of rule over Ireland down through history. We all have to live with that record. Indeed, I believe that we have a moral duty to try to right such wrongs as we can. Whatever the mistakes and missed opportunities of the past, we must now ensure that our actions in Northern Ireland are as far as possible above reproach and beyond criticism. Merely stating that fact, however, as some have done, does not mean that the troubles will go away.
During its five years in Government the Labour Party attempted to use direct rule in a positive and purposeful manner. On the economic front, it adopted a special policy of attracting high-grade industries to Northern Ireland and maintaining public spending levels intact.
I should mention that while working hard on this speech and other matters appertaining to Northern Ireland today, I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), had to meet two separate deputations of people high up in trade unions and industry


in Northern Ireland. It grieves me that such people have to come here. I need only mention to the Secretary of State Enkalon and Abbey Meats and to ask what on earth is going on on the economic front in Northern Ireland.
We must know the policy and purpose behind what is happening, because these matters are related. The situation with regard to Enkalon is extremely serious and as we found out this morning, the same applies to Abbey Meats. All this affects the economic front, but I hope that the Minister understands that what happens on the economic and social welfare front has a bearing on the security and political front.
The Labour Government deliberately tackled the problems of bad housing and poverty and succeeded in stabilising the level of unemployment when it had started to rise in other areas. Our period of direct rule was also committed to eliminating the remaining discriminatory practices in Northern Ireland. An impressive range of Government and autonomous agencies, such as the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission, were set up specifically to remedy and prevent discrimination in public administration and all levels of employment. Through such works we began to win the support of both communities, which we regarded as essential groundwork for any discussions on a political settlement. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and Barnsley (Mr. Mason), having worked for both of them over that period—I was the continuity man in the middle, for my sins—for the work that they did in winning that wide support.
Everyone conveniently remembers the renowned Ulster Workers Council strike in 1974, but conveniently forgets the unsuccessful strike led by the hon. Member for Antrim, North in the early summer of 1978. Under our regime his personal following was dwindling—a situation hardly credible today—and I believe that at one time he offered to resign from political affairs if he did not win on that issue.
What is more, direct rule was seen to be working. Ministers were out and about in the community more often than they were settled in Stormont Castle. I, too, could be seen about. I remember two weekends, the first of which I spent in Lisnaskea with our late colleague Frank Maguire and the second at the Wheel Tappers and Shunters Club with Harland and Wolff. There are always hazards in these things. After five years in office I came back from Northern Ireland three stones overweight—full of potato bread and Guinness, no doubt. I am still waiting for the whippets on the Conservative Front Bench to show the same visible signs of the activities that Ministers should undertake in Northern Ireland.
It was a strict policy laid down by my two right hon. Friends at that time that one had to be out and about and be seen to be working hard at direct rule. We proved that there was a fair way of government, as the Secretary of State has said, but that work is never finished. Much of what we achieved needs to be constantly reviewed to ensure that real or imagined feelings of deprivation or discrimination are properly dissipated.
It is in that vein that we today call upon the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government to institute a wide-ranging inquiry into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Very early in our period of office we

realised that such powers, which effectively suspend the normal course of common law for those accused of terrorist offences, needed to be independently reviewed if they were not to be seen as the tough arm of a repressive State. That inquiry, brought into being by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South and chaired by Lord Gardiner, recommended substantial changes in the emergency powers after they had been in operation for less than two years.
Most of the recommendations—notably the ending of detention—were accepted by the Labour Government and implemented either immediately or when the emergency powers were amended. Whereas there was a space of just 18 months between the passage of the first Diplock emergency powers Act and the setting up of the Gardiner inquiry, it is now seven years since the House had the benefit of an independent adjudication on the operation of the strong powers contained in the Act.
For the past 12 months Labour Members have been urging the Secretary of State to set up an inquiry along the lines of the Gardiner inquiry to see whether those powers are still appropriate to the security situation in the Province today. To use a sporting metaphor, I think that that suggestion was dribbled the length of the field by the Secretary of State and then conveniently kicked into touch.
I remind the house that the Gardiner inquiry stressed that the
emergency powers should be limited both in scope and duration.
I suggest that some of my colleagues who are new to Northern Ireland should read some of those old reports. It is even good for me, having been there at the time, to look back at them. They provide a great deal of information on the real problems of government in Northern Ireland.
Paragraph 21 of the report says of such powers:
Though there are times when they are necessary for the preservation of human life, they can, if prolonged, damage the fabric of the community, and they do not provide lasting solutions.
Clearly, the Secretary of State did not have those words in mind when he effectively scotched our suggestion last December by saying that an independent review would raise false expectations, and, in his view, would increase tensions. Many Opposition Members believe that the very powers in the Act may serve—I only say "may serve"—to heighten tensions.
While we fully accept the need to protect the community against terrorism, we are deeply concerned about the erosion of basic civil liberties. The continued and unreviewed emergency powers as they stand may impede the possibilities of a peaceful settlement.
There are a number of areas in which we think that an inquiry would help the House when we consider these powers in future. In particular, as has been said, the one-judge and no-jury courts which deal with terrorist offences should be brought under close scrutiny. While Gardiner concluded that no change should be made in this area, the time may now be ripe to have a panel of lay assessors or a group of three judges sitting together. All the pros and cons on this are in the Gardiner report. There is also a strong argument for reconsidering the list of offences which have to be dealt with by such courts. It may be possible—I put it no higher than that—to deschedule some of them so that a measured return to jury trial can be achieved.
In this respect, I remind the House that the Gardiner report stated in paragraph 26:


We believe that trial by jury is the best form of trial for serious cases, and that it should be restored in Northern Ireland as soon as this becomes possible.
I am not giving my views. I am merely stating areas of concern which I believe should be seriously examined by an independent body, as took place in 1975.
Similarly, with other sections of the Act, most notably the provisions relating to prosecutions for firearm offences, many believe that the onus of proof is wrongly placed on the accused to explain why he happened to be in the same building as a firearms cache. That should also be looked at.
I am also concerned about rules laid down for the admissibility of evidence. Section 8(2) of the Act may not fully protect the accused from the use of force or threat of physical violence when under interrogation, and there is a strong case—this has been admitted in some of our previous debates—for the wording of that section to be tightened. There may also be room for change in the section dealing with proscribed organisations.
That was brought to public attention only recently with the finding of guns, and so on, at the headquarters of the Ulster Defence Association. I understand that the Secretary of State has instituted an inquiry, and we shall watch closely to ensure that all terrorist organisations, whatever their aims, are treated in the same way.
Many other aspects of the emergency powers need to be looked at again and reassessed in the light of the changing security situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will refer to some of them, and I am sure that many others will crop up during the debate.
An independent look at these powers could be of especial benefit in relation to the hunger strike protest at the Maze prison. Those engaged in the protest have used their conviction by unique judicial powers as part justification for their claim to special and unique treatment in prison. Anyone with any knowledge of Northern Ireland will know that the extraordinary judicial processes that exist to deal with crimes of a terrorist nature had to be introduced because of intimidation against witnesses and jurors. Indeed, the whole course of justice in the early 1970s was perverted in the most unacceptable way, when many witnesses and jurors were too scared of kneecapping or "knee-capping through the head", as the phrase used to go, to get involved with any court proceedings.
To those who doubt that, I quote paragraph 27 of the Gardiner report, which stated:
we were given details of 482 instances between 1st January 1972 and 31st August 1974 in which civilian witnesses to murder and other terrorist offences were either too afraid to make any statement at all, or, having made a statement implicating an individual, were so afraid that they refused in any circumstances to give evidence in court. It is reasonable to assume that juries would be equally open to intimidation.
My family and I really know what intimidation is all about, and we are also aware of the various obnoxious ways in which it can be carried out by all sorts of organisations.
An independent review of emergency powers would be able to look again at this situation to evaluate one way or another whether the conditions still exist to make special judicial processes unavoidable.
In such a sensitive and delicate area we believe that an independent voice would be of immense value. It would be able to place the claims of the protesters, that they have not been justly treated, against the distorting influence that terrorist activity has on the normal course of justice.
I stress, however, that we have not changed our view on the question of political status. No matter what intimidation I may experience, I do not think that anyone would expect me to acquiesce. The view of the Labour Party and the last two Labour conferences is that we are against the granting of political status, and I can do no better than quote paragraph 107 of the Gardiner report to explain how we stand:
We can see no justification for granting privileges to a large number of criminals convicted of very serious crimes, in many cases murder, merely because they claim political motivation. It supports their own view, which society must reject, that their political motivation in some way justifies their crimes.
I reject political status, and the Labour Party rejects it.
While we would support liberalising changes in prisons throughout the United Kingdom we could never condone the use of violence for political ends. That would be to fly in the face of all the traditions of democracy and freedom of speech which this House and my party hold dear. It is quite plain that the emergency powers for Northern Ireland are in urgent need of review. It means not that we must weaken our fight against terrorism but, rather, that we should look into the working of the system of justice to see whether it is not now counter-productive.
All of us would benefit from an independent look at the Act, for where such wide-ranging powers to arrest, detain, interrogate and convict exist we should always be looking to see whether a return to normality is possible. As a Minister, I know how helpful the first Gardiner report was. We could look at it and quote it and say that it was the way forward. I remind those who complain about it that one of its chapters is now defunct. That is the chapter on detention, but, of course, we had to introduce some kind of judicial process as envisaged by Diplock and Gardiner.
We do not wish to see provision for direct rule or emergency powers on the statute book for a moment longer than necessary, but while direct rule remains it must be seen to be impartial and fair. Where there is such notable and significant disquiet on the administration of justice, this House has an unquestionable duty to respond in a positive and sensitive fashion.
Our amendment is a reasonable and moderate proposal. I am amazed that the Government have refused to accept it. It will do their intransigent image no good at all. I ask all my hon. Friends and Conservative Members who support our idea to follow the Opposition into the Lobby tonight.
Finally, I want to make it absolutely clear that we regard a review of the Act as a matter of priority. As soon as the next Labour Government are returned to power they will institute a wide-ranging inquiry into the working of the Act to see whether such exceptional powers are still totally necessary.
5.37 pm

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am proud to follow the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He has served Northern Ireland well, and, despite all the difficulties with which he must contend within his party, he is still serving Northern Ireland well.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was something of a curate's egg, because it had to reflect the views of an addled party. At the beginning of his speech he talked much good sense about the folly of the idea of reparation and the right of our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland to enjoy the same self-determination as was accorded to the


people in Southern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been aware of it, but what he said about the border was a quotation from Kevin O'Higgins, who said that it was no good talking about abolishing the boundary until we had abolished it in our hearts.
The right hon. Gentleman made a remarkable speech. However, I must make one further small criticism. He said that we had nothing to be proud of in Ireland. But if we go to Ireland and look about us, we can see some things about which the British can be proud.

Mr. Kilfedder: Trinity college.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Yes, indeed—but that was the English and not the British.
If the right hon. Member for Mansfield looks at the speech by John Redmond in 1914 about social and economic conditions in Ireland compared with such conditions in Great Britain, he will find testimony from a great nationalist that there is indeed something in Ireland about which the British can be proud.
I must turn to the business before us before I test your patience, Mr. Speaker, too far. I think that my right hon. Friend knows that I long for a moratorium on political talks accompanied by boycotts and for a moratorium on political initiatives, political options, and so on. However, I am not prepared to say a word against his proposal for a Northern Ireland Council. It is not quite clear how it will be formed or how it will function. The council of Wales already plays a certain part. A Northern Ireland Council could conceivably be developed in the direction outlined in the Conservative Party manifesto. This proposal is either important or it is not. I presume that it is important. Therefore, it is only right that hon. Members should be given more notice of its provisions before debating it. It is only right that we should consider the proposal and then discuss it sensibly. We all want to extract as much value as possible from my right hon. Friend's suggestion.
In general, I regret the frenetic tendency to be seen to be doing something in order to impress others. The other day I read that the Northern Ireland Office had been awarded the palm of "institutional inventiveness". Sometimes that inventiveness should be kept within bounds. We should not always seek to do things that may impress those who are opposed to us. An extreme example of that is the letter from Mr. Peter Jay that appeared in The Times.It is a horrifying thought-and perhaps it explains some of the things now happening in the United States of America—that he was once our ambassader to Washington. He wrote to The Times to tell us that we can outflank the IRA and defeat it by doing what it wants. He suggested that we should give the IRA a united Ireland. However, the united Ireland that Mr. Jay had in mind is not the united Ireland that the IRA thinks about.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield clearly asserted the right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination, but he then spoke about Irish unity. I hope that by "Irish unity" he meant that we might be able to rebuild the unity of these islands on the unique relationship that exists between the Republic and the United Kingdom, without prejudice to the sovereignty of the two nations within them.

Mr. James Molyneaux: rose—

Mr. Kilfedder: rose—

Sir John Biggs-Davison: To whom should I give way, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. James Molyneaux.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker for calling me. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but he rightly said that we should not be expected to express detailed opinions abut the proposal for the Nothern Ireland Council without being given more notice and detail. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not be expected to vote, even by implication, on any such proposal this evening? Does he agree that the way in which we vote tonight should not be taken as an expression of approval or disapproval of the Secretary of State's proposal?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: In any case, I propose to support my right hon. Friend. His proposal is not in a form in which we can give a considered judgment on it in the Lobby, or otherwise.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before the Secretary of State resumed his seat it appeared to a number of us that he said that a vote in favour of the main motion would be taken as expressing general approval of the proposals that he mentioned. It would greatly help if we have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman and if a vote for the motion conveys no more than the words of the motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) must say something, otherwise we shall have a disorderly debate.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: With great relief, I see that my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I do not recall the precise words that I used. I intended to say that I hoped that the House would approve of what I said and that I hoped that it would also approve the motion. Obviously, we shall vote only on the words on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members approve of what I said.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak. I do not find the amendment offensive. We are constitutionalists, and special powers that invade the liberty of the subject and the normal judicial processes of the land should never be taken for granted. Nor should their authorisation by or renewal by Parliament be taken as read. In Northern Ireland we defend the rule of law against the law of the gun. As my right hon. Friend said, we stand unequivocally for the rule of law.
When we debated the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act last December I expressed approval of what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I said:
I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not close his mind to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the effect that the Diplock courts should be reformed…We take note of the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that any emergency power no longer needed will be dispensed with."—[Official Report, 10 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 1577–80.]
The Secretary of State repeated that assurance today.
I do not attack the Diplock courts. On the initiative of the hon. Member for Belfast, West I interested myself in the case of the late Guiseppe Conlan. I happen to believe in his innocence, and I hope, with the hon. Gentleman, to discuss the case again with the Home Secretary. It was said


that if Conlan had been tried by a Diplock judge instead of by a judge and jury he might not have been unjustly convicted. I mention that in order to defend the Diplock courts against some of the attacks made on them. The Cobden Trust has been busy again. There was a conference at Queen's university, Belfast, on 13 June on the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Lord Gardiner attended the conference and I travelled back with him from Northern Ireland. A pamphlet that is probably in the hands of many hon. Members loses much of its credibility because it makes the following wild assertion:
According to widely accepted Queen's University study,"—
that is rather a vague way of expressing it—
up to 80 per cent. of all convictions in Diplock Courts have been based on out of court admissions under the 'cruel inhuman and degrading treatment' standard.
I am sorry that that piece of work should have been vitiated by such an extraordinary and outrageous accusation. It is worth considering whether there are scheduled offences—the right hon. Member for Mansfield mentioned this point—that might be released for trial by jury. I do not pontificate one way or the other. However, we should be assured that there is the machinery for keeping such matters under continuous review.
I hope that the Minister of State, in summing up, will tell us whether any machinery exists, either in his Department or within the Joint Advisory Committee on Human Rights, for keeping under review the workings of the Diplock courts and of the emergency provisions generally.

Mr. Concannon: I think that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) is labouring under a misapprehension. All the groups that he has mentioned are in favour of a new independent review of the emergency powers legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that just because we are moving towards a review of the Act we are against that legislation. We are not doing that, nor are we saying that. We are saying that there should be a review. Some of the matters that worry the hon. Gentleman and others could be looked at in that independent review. That is all that we are saying.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Member for Mansfield has shown, not only by his words today but by his deeds, that he supports these regrettably necessary provisions. We know that, and I did not question it. He has asked for an independent review. I am not sure what is meant by "independent". I am asking for an assurance by the Minister of State that the point is taken that concern exists in the House and that we are not prepared to go on six months after six months. It is a pity that opinion should be divided in the House by the text or the detailed words of the amendment that the Leader of the Opposition has properly tabled for discussion today.
Lastly, another review is required—a review of the workings of the Criminal Jurisdiction Act, which runs parallel with the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act of the Republic. I do not know whether that legislation has been effective in any other case than that of one of the murderers of Captain Nairac. It is a piece of machinery which everyone has said is only a second-best to extradition. It presents difficulties to investigating officers and to witnesses, whether they come from Great Britain or from Northern Ireland. I do not believe that this legislation is working well. I do not believe that such modest expectations as we had of it have been fulfilled.
The truth is—I say this as one who has great respect for the statesmen and people of the Irish Republic—that the Irish Republic is not discharging its international responsibilities or its duty to a European partner. Its territory is still being used as a base, a haven and a place of training and re-equipment for terrorists who make their incursions into the United Kingdom. There is a new Administration in Dublin, and we wish Dr. Garret Fitzgerald and his colleagues well. Their detestation of terrorism is unquestioned, but we look to them to find ways of matching words with deeds, deeds—that can lead to the extinction of terrorism throughout the island of Ireland.
5.45 pm

Mr. James Callaghan: Those of us who do not have our constituencies in Northern Ireland or who do not live in that tormented Province should exercise considerable reticence in intervening in its affairs—although every one of us is a part of the United Kingdom—because we cannot wholly judge the atmosphere in which contributions are made. I hope that what I shall say this afternoon will be construed in a constructive way, and certainly as no attempt to be in any way irresponsible about affairs, as I see them as an observer.
I add my hearty support to the tributes that have been paid to the soldiers, the police and other members of the public services who daily carry out their heavy responsibilities at the cost, sometimes, of their lives and personal safety. Having observed what has happened, I also wish to add my thanks to Ministers and politicians of all persuasions who are concerned with public life in Northern Ireland, who work under pressures over and above those that any of the rest of us in the United Kingdom have to endure. They do a thankless task with great courage.
I was glad to hear what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He has been a Minister or a Shadow Minister since 1974—longer than most of us have been associated directly with that problem. Speaking for myself, I admire the way in which he has carried out his responsibilities with vigour, honesty and commitment. I want to put on record how deeply I resent the slanders and attacks that are being made on him by those who should know better—such as the attempts by outsiders to organise a train from London on Saturday to descend on his constituency. It is a monstrous intrusion, and I am sure that Mansfield will repudiate those interlopers if they arrive.
I fully support the renewal of the emergency regulations, and also the request made by my right hon. Friend, which was supported by Conservative Members, for a review of the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that there is no particular advantage in refusing that. There is always an advantage in conceding it when it can be conceded, so as to satisfy those who feel that from time to time Parliament should have the opportunity to review these matters. I trust that the Minister of State will give art affirmative answer when he winds up.
The Secretary of State announced that in certain circumstances he will be prepared to consider improvements in the regime at the prisons. He also announced


today a new proposal that will give some kind of political input into the affairs of Northern Ireland. I see no reason why we should not hope that that will prosper, although I had a wry smile when his two initiatives on two separate days were immediately repudiated by the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Such is the fate of all initiatives and proposals that are made about Northern Ireland. I have no hesitation in saying that what I shall say today will be met by outcry and outrage as soon as it is said, by one or possibly by all of those who are concerned with these problems.
That leads me to a conclusion, to which I shall come a little later. I fear that we must conclude that Northern Ireland is in almost total stalemate, both politically and militarily, with alarming adverse social and economic consequences, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend and others.
Our present policy, as the Secretary of State said this afternoon, with all of our support, is to pursue the dual policies of direct rule and persistent firmness and resolution to repress the violence of the IRA and any other terrorist organisations. I believe that all of us strongly support these measures, which are directed against those who have brought so much terror and suffering to Northern Ireland.
However, today, as we are asked to renew the emergency regulations, as we shall do, we must ask the two questions that the people in our country are asking. First, how long do we persist with these dual policies? Secondly, will they succeed?
There are those who argue that to say anything new will encourage the IRA, and that if we persist long enough and with the resolution that has been shown by all Ministers of both parties on this matter we shall eventually win. Then I have to ask the question: what does winning mean? History shows that during the past 25 years there have been only six years without political disruption or violence of one kind or another. Those periods occur when, temporarily, the IRA has shot its bolt and falls back exhausted. When it has regathered strength, the battle starts again.
So I repeat: what does winning mean? Does it mean another temporary respite? Does anyone believe that our dual policy of direct rule combined with firmness will result in Northern Ireland emerging permanently—I utter the word "permanently"—from years of torment, with its people reconciled to one another and all of them reconciled to the existing relationship with Britain? I must answer that question in the negative. I do not think that history or any judgment of the future can lead us to that conclusion. At best, "winning", in my judgment, would be merely—no, I withdraw the word "merely"—would be an uneasy period of lower tension until the IRA had found another pretext to start the cycle again and plunge the people of Northern Ireland, once more back into disruption and death.
It is 12 long years since I gave the signal for British troops to be deployed in the streets of Belfast. I might recall that this signal was given in answer to insistent calls from the Catholic population expressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) whose courage, again, over the years, all hon. Members must commend. It was given in answer to insistent calls from

the Catholic population, expressed through my hon. Friend and others, for protection against extremist Protestant mobs. That should not be forgotten.
When the troops went in we said publicly that we hoped that it would be for a short time. Privately, I do not think that any of us associated with that decision really believed it. We knew that it was easier to get in than to get out. Time has shown how right that view was. Since then, the number of troops deployed on the streets in Northern Ireland has increased at times and has decreased at other times as the situation has fluctuated. I do not believe that there is any solution at all in the slogan "Troops Out" or in the belief that if we put more troops in we shall get a solution. Neither will bring permanent reconciliation.
I agree that direct rule carried out fully by Secretaries of State in Governments in which I have had the honour to serve in one position or another has been an important and major success in providing the government that the Province had to have. However, it does not provide a permanent political solution, as I believe the Secretary of State was acknowledging this afternoon, although he did not explicity say so. It is this that I say the House must seek again, despite what has happened in the past.
During the last 12 years many well-intentioned and well worked-out proposals have been put forward by Ministers and others inside Northern Ireland as well as by Governments of both parties in Britain. All these have been attempts to create a stable political structure. All have failed. Every plan or scheme that Britain has put forward has been criticised and found to be unsuitable by one community or the other, and sometimes by both. They have all ended in the waste paper basket.
Looking back over that last 12 years—this is the lesson that I draw—we see that Britain has proposed and Ireland has reacted. I believe that the time has come to change that kind of pattern. I shall say how I think it should be done. This afternoon saw another example. As soon as the Secretary of State had announced his proposal for a political council, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was on his feet to say how useless it would be.
Yesterday, on the hunger strikers—

Mr. Kilfedder: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I shall give way in a moment. As soon as the Secretary of State made his proposal the other side were immediately on their feet to say that it was useless. The Secretary of State is an optimist, or he would be a very disheartened man.

Mr. Kilfedder: The point that I was making—I think that it is fair—is that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to operate through elected representatives. To create an advisory body made up of people nominated and without responsibility and power will not help Northern Ireland. At best, it may create an opposition group on the advisory council. Many of them might be the minions of the Secretary of State, paid to be there.

Mr. Callaghan: I understood the Secretary of State to say that his intention was that the parties should nominate their own representatives from among those who had been elected either to this House or as district councillors or as members of the European Parliament. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. One cannot, however, say that they would be creatures of the Secretary of State. If that happened, I am sure that the parties would soon


replace them. I do not wish to discuss the matter at this moment. I instance it—I hope that the hon. Member for Down, North will forgive me—as an example of the perpetual reaction that occurs to any proposal made from Westminster, however good or bad.

Mr. Kilfedder: It is right that people should react.

Mr. Callaghan: I wish to address my next remarks specifically to hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The time has come when we in Westminster must remove any lingering belief among the two communities that it is the duty and the responsibility of the British Government alone to overcome the obduracy of whichever community is in opposition to what British Ministers propose. I believe that this would mark a sea change in our relationship with the Province. The Secretary of State has begun that process today in a minor way.
I must take my share of responsibility for what we have done and the mistakes that we have made over the last 13 years. I have had something to do with it. I believe that our well-intentioned but paternalistic attitude has undermined the sense of responsibility that the people of Northern Ireland should feel for their own destinies. We see examples of that every time a proposal is put forward.
The proposition that I wish to put is that Britain, from now on, should make it clear that she intends increasingly to regard the people of Northern Ireland as responsible for proposing and taking the initiatives to solve the problems of how they intend to live with one another. It is my genuine belief, following discussions, that many people in the Province would respond with courage and fair-mindedness to this challenge.
The Taoiseach, Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald, said during the course of the election something with which I profoundly agree. It was:
The future of Northern Ireland will not be shaped by politicians or civil servants in London and Dublin aiming mirrors at Belfast and Derry. Ultimately it will be decided by Irish men and women acting together in Ireland.
I am pretty sure, reading the context, that Dr. Fitzgerald was referring to Irish living in the South working with Irish living in the North. When he talks about "acting together", the same truth applies to those who live in the North whose need is also to act together.
My case today is that Britain should at once begin the process of formulating a new policy based on that principle. It should provide such a policy for a continuous series of separate steps taken at deliberate intervals with the ultimate aim of giving the people of Northern Ireland complete responsibility for their own affairs.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Complete?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, complete. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will acquit me of any intention of finding a one-line solution. I do not intend to fall into that error.

Mr. Powell: Independence.

Mr. Callaghan: If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself he will find all these questions answered before I reach the end of my speech. By murmuring that word he will not get me there any sooner.
The process that I envisage would take some years to complete and the final step would be that a new Northern Ireland would emerge as a broadly independent State.

Mr. Powell: Broadly.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman will find that the qualification is worked out if he contains himself. There would emerge a broadly independent State that had in the process forged a new relationship with both Dublin and London. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must not be too frightened when I say Dublin, too. The first step must be a fresh examination at Westminster. I welcome the fact that a study group in my own party is trying to work out a new policy. It will be difficult. I have the privilege now, as a humble Back Bencher, of speaking my own mind without having to take into account anything except my own conscience and judgment about matters.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Gentleman said, at the beginning of his remarks, that hon. Members must have some regard in the speeches that we make to the impression created in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of what is only too much in the front of my mind. We have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland, to the people of the whole United Kingdom. It is in that spirit that I approach the matter.
I know that there is some pressure to end what is called bipartisanship. Pressure is being put on the Labour Party to do that. As far as I know there has never been any formal agreement between Government and Opposition, whichever party was in office. Certainly there is strong disagreement between the Government and the Labour Party—expressed this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield—on the remedies for the economic and social ills of Northern Ireland, but I have never seen any advantage, and I see none now, in deliberately trying to magnify differences between the Government and the Opposition on the political future of that country, if by taking some steps together we can relieve any part of the torment.
Therefore, I believe that we should begin with a fresh discussion at Westminster. If the Government thought it right to ask the parties to join in, I hope that my party and the others would do so. Nothing should be excluded from such a debate. At present every fresh discussion is constrained by self-imposed limitations—justifiable limitations, I admit. There is the fear that anything that we may do will lead to the IRA being encouraged to renewed effort, the feeling that, of course, we must give no encouragement to it or to any terrorist organisation. There is no doubt that that has inhibited discussion in the House. There is the further limitation of the solemn guarantee, given by statute of this House, that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority so desire.
None of those self-imposed limitations can be taken lightly, nor should they be set aside without the fullest consideration. But circumstances may arise in which they should be set aside, in the interests of everybody, including the Protestants in Northern Ireland. In my view, the time is ripe for a fundamental, free and open discussion here at Westminster. That is the first step.
When such discussions are concluded between the parties or in whatever way the debate is to take place the Government should formulate their new policy and seek the support of Parliament for their general intentions. They should then call the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives together in some kind of convention to hear


our intentions. This is where we change the boundaries. They would then have to consider what our intentions were. That is how I wish to see us approach the matter. The Secretary of State has set up a new political advisory committee to which he says he can refer any matter. I understand that on its own initiative it can consider these matters. Perhaps it would be an appropriate body. I do not know.
My hope is that if the policy that emerges at Westminster is that Northern Ireland should, in the fullness of time, take responsibility for its own future the Government will state to whatever body they call together that it is not the intention of the Westminster Government to produce further proposals, plans or solutions—no more action, with the consequential immediate reaction of dismissing what is said. The people of Northern Ireland would themselves produce their own plans, in the knowledge that they would have to decide under what constitution they wished to live together, how they would combat terrorism and how they would settle the future of their own country and of their own children.
Britain would clearly play an important part in this continuing process. We should need to indicate how we should help Northern Ireland to this end and what we should do when Northern Ireland finally became independent. For example, we should need, both morally and to secure a political solution, to give firm undertakings about social security obligations and such matters as pensions. We should regard ourselves as having a substantial obligation to build up the economy in Northern Ireland.
Clearly, a Northern Ireland citizenship is an essential element. Some Northern Ireland citizens already hold two passports—a United Kingdom passport and a passport of the Republic. In an independent Northern Ireland all those living there would, by virtue of residence, be citizens of Northern Ireland, but Britain should also undertake that if they so chose they would also be British citizens, with all the rights of British citizens.
"What, then, of the guarantee?" I shall be asked—and rightly asked, because it is not a matter to be dismissed. I believe that the best way of meeting the fears or aspirations of those who care deeply about the question is that when the necessary steps have been taken—step by step over a period, and not immediately—in the fulness of time the guarantee that we have given should be transferred from the territory to the people. Everyone who wished to remain a British citizen would be free to do so.
My purpose is that the people of Northern Ireland should recognise that their best hope for the future lies in finding a solution to their own problems, and that Britain's policy should increasingly, step by step, move in that direction, while we fulfil all our responsibilities.
I propose, as one of the series of steps that should be taken, a Bill of Rights to be drawn up, after discussion, to safeguard every citizen. We should be willing to enact it at Westminster and pass it to the people of Northern Ireland when they become fully independent.
It would be a matter for discussion of the way in which the new Northern Ireland Parliament would be elected. I am told that proportional representation would not help to bring a broken community together. I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South recognises that that is what he represents today—a broken community. It is his task

and mine to see how it can be brought together. Proportional representation should be examined to see whether it could be of value, but I am told that it would not.
As for legislation enacted by the Northern Ireland Parliament—here I come to the qualification of my word "broadly"—it could be provided that there would be a right of appeal from any act of the Northern Ireland Parliament that seemed to infringe the constitution of the Bill of Rights. That appeal could be to a bench of judges from the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and the Republic.
As an independent country, Northern Ireland would be able to make its own decision about joining international organisations such as the United Nations, the European Community, the Common Market and, if it wished, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. An independent Northern Ireland might find considerable advantage in having a direct voice as a member of such bodies as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I emphasise that such changes must be carefully prepared and presented, and above all must be carried out stage by stage and not in a rush.
The two communities would recognise that they would no longer be sheltered from discharging their own responsibilities and that their future was in their own hands. By virtue of its numbers, the Protestant majority especially would have a great responsibility and a historic opportunity.
Dublin's attitude would be crucial. There is no need for it to abandon—indeed, there is no point in calling on it to abandon—its cherished hope of eventual unification. But that is not a policy; it is an aspiration. Dublin's help is needed before this or any other plan can succeed.
If the forms of government devised by both communities permitted them to recognise their mutual interdependence and common identity, support for the IRA would dwindle, and so would the terrorism that now disfigures the country, although I am not optimistic enough to believe that it will ever entirely disappear. However, the suffering people of Northern Ireland would be able to lead a normal life for almost the first time, without the Army having to be called in regularly to support the civil power. So the result would be that our Army would be able honourably to give up those onerous duties that it has carried out for so many years.
I am aware that similar proposals have been canvassed from time to time. I am sure that what I have said will be dismissed and attacked from both sides. My purpose is to restart a political discussion that is badly needed, to get away from sloganising and to propose at least one possible way forward that would safeguard both Protestant and Catholic and enable them to recognise their interdependence.
I conclude by reminding those who will dismiss what I have said that, for all the commitments of successive British Governments, the people of the Province still seem to have no prospect of an orderly life in a thriving society, that the record of the past 12 years amply demonstrates the futility of contriving in Westminster solutions that cannot be imposed, and that therefore the time is ripe for the people of Northern Ireland to begin the process of working out their own future.
Their success will depend on nothing less than the supreme task—we do not underrate the difficulty—of establishing a common identity for themselves. With our


encouragement, and by taking the process step by step, they can do so, especially if we remember the painful and tragic lessons that we have all learnt as a result of the last 12 years.
At the very least we should now talk freely among ourselves at Wesminster without inhibition of self-imposed constraints. At the very best we have another chance. In all seriousness I say, for God's sake let us take it.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1.Matrimonial Homes and Property Act 1981
2.Industrial Diseases (Notification) Act 1981
3.Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act 1981
4.Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 1981.
5.Licensing (Alcohol Education and Research) Act 1981
6.Fisheries Act 1981
7.Horserace Betting Levy Act 1981
8.Insurance Companies Act 1981
9.Transport Act 1962 (Amendment) Act 1981
10.Social Security Act 1981
11.Representation of the People Act 1981
12.British Railways (Pension Schemes) Act 1981
13.Whitehaven Harbour Act 1981
14.Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford>: I know that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will not take it amiss when I say that I listened to his comments with great sorrow rather than with anger. I felt that we were back to the early 1970s.
I shall not take the time of the House to deal with the error that was apparent at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech when he said that the troops were sent to Northern Ireland to protect the Roman Catholic minority in the Province and that he was asked to do so by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He will agree that the most important reason for sending in the troops was that the RUC was under great pressure because of the influence of the street agitators. That fact must be put clearly on record.
Although the right hon. Gentleman couched his argument in almost clerical if not censorious terms, his tones did not veil his counsel of despair. Any proposal that causes Ulster to cease to be part of the United Kingdom, to cease to be British, is the consequence of a counsel of despair. That is my underlying objection to the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government's duty is to defend and govern every part of the United Kingdom. It is not the duty of the Government

to expect a helpful reaction from the Province of Ulster. The duty of any Government is to defend and govern Ulster, as it would any other part of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman's main thesis was independence, although he referred to it as "broad" independence. Independence is not an option for Northern Ireland, for one basic reason. The people of Northern Ireland do not want independence. It is as simple as that. We shall not be disinherited. We shall not accept independence as a viable option for the future of the Province.
One could expand on that, but I shall make only two simple points. In Ulster we recognise that the two greatest political and economic power blocs in the world are so anti-Ulster and pro-Irish—and I use the word "Irish" in he Republican sense—that it would be only a matter of time before the political and economic pressures exerted by the EEC and the United States made Ulster independence untenable and unworkable. We have ample evidence that, de facto, America and the EEC treat the island of Ireland as one—if not in law, in fact.

Mrs. Elaine Kellet-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when the EEC recently debated some of Northern Ireland's problems it passed a resolution that was sympathetic to Northern Ireland. It pointed out clearly that its sympathy was with the victims of violence rather than with the perpetrators of it.

Mr. Bradford: I am aware of that, but it is not the point that I am making. Both America and the EEC envisage, desire and are working for a time when the island of Ireland will be one entity. I am afraid that that is a simple fact.
I do not intend to offer a precis to the speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East but I wish to make a further comment about it. He made the incredible statement that the people of Northern Ireland could remain British and yet that Ulster as a territory would not remain within the United Kingdom. How can one be a citizen without a country? That is what would happen. 'We in Ulster would be citizens without a country territorially and geographically, as Northern Ireland ceased to be part of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman's observations were fascinating, because obviously they were geared to severing the link between Ulster and the rest of the United Kingdom. The observations are fascinating, since they come only months after his Government added to the seats available to the Province. It is understandable that the Northern Ireland peope find it impossible to trust what is said in this House at any time. The right hon. Gentleman must face that problem. He goes in one direction on one occasion and in a different direction on another not much later.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) rightly said that there was a battle for the minds of the people of Northern Ireland. There are two battles. There is a battle for the mind of the minority community and another for the mind of the majority community. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to concentrate on the battle for the mind of the majority. The House appears to have conceded the battle for the mind of the minority. That is not helpful.
We should address ourselves to the task of trying to convince the people of Northern Ireland who are part of


the minority community. I am speaking of the religious minority. The terms are sometimes confused. The political minority and the religious minority are two entities. That must be recognised. The House has conceded the battle for the mind of the religious minority. We should be trying to convince the preponderance of that religious minority that there is a future for them within the United Kingdom as Ulstermen and British citizens.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman's protestations would impress me more if it were not for the fact that for 50 years the Protestant majority held the right to influence the mind of the religious minority and failed signally to do so. I cannot, therefore, be persuaded now that we should concern ourselves too much with the majority.

Mr. Bradford: I shall not be tempted down that avenue. Only as far back as 1920 one-third of the community, encouraged by the hierarchy of its own religion, sent a little card to Stormont saying that it would not appoint a chaplain, take one-third of the police force, and so on, in spite of the First Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland being a Roman Catholic.
One could go on ad infinitum, listing and cataloguing ways in which the minority, at the inception of the State, refused to make it work—a ship with one-third of its crew mutinying, aided and abetted by one of the two chaplains on board. That is what we had in 1920. Let us not go down that avenue. It is unfruitful and unhelpful.
I shall return to my argument about the battle for the minds. The war for the religious minority should be fought and not conceded. However, if it is conceded one assumes that the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland will have their right to remain British removed at some given time in the future. The right to remain British will be bulldozed out of existence and they will never be able to contemplate a time when they will remain unceasingly within the United Kingdom. That is what it means to abdicate the battle for the mind of the majority in asking them to accept that one day, at an unnamed date in the future, they will cease to be British. It is no good saying that that will be some time in the far vistas of the future, because by espousing a preference for Irish unity now the British majority in the Province will be disinherited progressively. It is disinheritance by progressive severance and a wounding inch by inch. That wounding festers with treachery.
Earlier, as the Secretary of State adumbrated his proposals for the council in Ulster, I could not help feeling that those proposals made Pandora's box look like a fragrant powder pack in some attractive female's bag. He will be dealing with Pandora's box if he pursues his proposals. We shall have a hotchpotch of people discussing the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, with which the House is ill at ease, let alone a group of untutored councillors and nominees. We shall be dealing with scrutinising legislation when the House should be offering more time to scrutinise Northern Ireland legislation here, where the laws are made. We shall be talking about considering the future Government for Northern Ireland when the Secretary of State knows that no reconciliation is possible between two conflicting religious and political philosophies—Unionism and

Republicanism. As those two philosophies are irreconcilable, what is the point of considering them again and again?
The proposals pose many questions. The first is what is the "substantial following" to which the Secretary of State referred? What did he mean by that? If he is talking about the substantial following that was suggested by a "recent poll", does he mean a recent local government election, the last Westminster election, or the European Parliament election? What substantial following does he mean? Which election will he use to determine that?
The second query is, what will the talking shop do to help solve the problems of housing, education and social services? What extra control will be placed in the hands of Ulster people over those vital services? What will it do to remove the exploitation that is apparent in area boards? What will it do to solve unemployment? How will the Secretary of State reflect the view of that council when he reports to the House? Will he reflect the majority view? In that case it will be a Unionist view, because the Official Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party received 60 per cent. of the vote in the last election in Ulster. Will he once again try to concoct a consensus?
The most serious problem is that such a council will compound in the minds of people on the mainland—here I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, SouthEast—that there is something special and different about Ulster that separates it from Cornwall, Devon, Newcastle, Glasgow and other places. The only fundamental difference is that we are giving a credibility to a political minority in one part of the United Kingdom that we would not dare give to any other part. That is a difference that should not exist.
I know that I shall not obtain much agreement, perhaps from either side, when I offer three observations on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Now is not the time to reduce the powers or measures in that Act. It is not the time to dilute the effect of the measures. It is a time to increase the powers available to the courts and to safeguard law-abiding society from IRA propaganda that is often imposed on Ulster and the mainland by the official media, often inadvertently, but, alas, always successfully on behalf of the IRA.
There is a need to increase the powers of the court and to safeguard us from needless IRA propaganda. I suggest that there is a case for including the Treason Act 1351 in the relevant schedule of the emergency provisions Act. There is a need for the ultimate deterrent against murderers and bombers, and that is capital punishment. Capital punishment would be possible under the Treason Act if it were included in the relevant schedule.
I accept that we could not apply the 1351 Act straight because of the problems about jury trials. A jury trial would be needed, and there are difficulties about jury trials. Incidentally, the jury trial problem arose not through intimidation to jurors or witnesses but because the Republican lawyers were not happy that they could secure a sufficiently non-biased jury for trying IRA prisoners. That is one of the fundamental reasons why we do not have jury trials. Although we could not include the 1351 Act straight, it could be included in the schedule, thereby obtaining capital punishment as an important deterrent against terrorism.
There is a need to deny terrorists the possibility of ventilating their views in newspapers, magazines, on the


radio and on television, either directly or through a non-proscribed sister organisation. The Ulster people have been insulted again and again by spokesmen for Sinn Fein appearing on television and the radio spewing out venom, poison and hatred on behalf of IRA convicts. The coverage appears to be endless.
The media in Ulster and on the mainland made the fundamental error of giving the first hunger strike all the propaganda that it desired. Thankfully, after Christmas they denied the second hunger strike the propaganda and coverage that they had afforded the first. Until Bobby Sands was elected a Member of Parliament the media exercised a prudent control, but they could not ignore his election to Parliament.
We must do something by statute to curb the ventilation of IRA propaganda, either directly or indirectly. We shall not be unique, because the Republic does not permit the publication of direct comments by terrorists and those involved in murder and bombing. We need a strengthening of the law in those two respects.
We need to destroy the morale of the IRA, which, when it eventually evaporates in the face of United Kingdom courage and resolution, will render emergency provisions unnecessary. We must destroy the morale of the IRA. We must put its objective beyond its reach, its touch and its attainment. That will not happen through the statement made by the Secretary of State on 30 June about the Maze prison. It will have the opposite effect to eroding the morale of the IRA. It will encourage the IRA to extract more concessions from the Government.
From January to the present time the Government have avoided the debacle of providing an information and elucidation service, which they provided during the first hunger strike. I earnestly plead with the Secretary of State not to make the mistake that he made prior to January. The signs are that he will make, that mistake again. The IRA will play him along until his enthusiasm to end the hunger strikes is such that the IRA will be offered the substance of political or special status, if not the name.
I wish to put three points to the Secretary of State. First, what new improvements are essential in the Maze prison to procure the humanitarian and progressive conditions—in what is Europe's most advanced prison—that the Secretary of State says already exist? Secondly, precisely what are the defects in the Maze prison that render it inhuman and primitive? Thirdly, how can further improvements be justified in advance of reforms in other British and Northern Ireland prisons without that being seen as a concession to the demands of the hunger strikers? I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would respond to those three points.
Perhaps improvements are required to end the alarming spate of anorexia nervosa that appears to be a Provincial plague. It is not a United Kingdom plague. It may have something to do with the proximity of the Maze prison to the animal and bird house that is close to the prison. They are all catching the slimmers' disease at the Maze prison and in Armagh. It is clear that English, Welsh and Scottish prisoners do not suffer from that disease.
One improvement is essential. There should be a phasing out of those prisoners who still enjoy compound life in the Maze prison. They still enjoy all the trappings of political or special category status. That would be a qualitative, not a quantitative, improvement. There should

be further cellular accommodation, so that prisoners now in compounds can be made to serve like the criminals they are, within the full control of the prison administration.
It is wrong to invite hunger strikers to cease their hunger strike—no matter whether they be Protestants, Roman Catholics, so-called Loyalists or Republicans. I care not who they are. If thy are murderers and criminals they are nothing but those. To ask them to cease their hunger strike on the basis that improvement will ensue is purely and simply wheeling and dealing. Let us put no other title than that on it. If we say that further improvements will come if the strikers do this or that, we shall be wheeling and dealing. At the moment the substance of special category is being offered if the strike ends. The time will come when the IRA will not worry about a name. It will say, with Shakespeare, "What's in a name?".
Part III of the 1978 Act deals with the public use of firearms and uniforms in a public place by prescribed organisations. I am bound to say to the Secretary of State that there is nothing more galling to the people whom I represent than to have to watch on television IRA paramilitary funerals that deliberately flout the law. He may argue that he has to choose the lesser of two evils., and that injudiciously to confront the thousands who congregate at the funerals would render the position worse than simply to let it pass.
I warn the right hon. Gentleman that the IRA is a past master at taking an inch, then a foot, and then a mile. If, as he said, he is prepared to fight the IRA within the law, let him apply the law that no uniforms or guns should be produced in public places—whether during a funeral or otherwise. If he allows that law to go unapplied in the Province the IRA will soon find other laws to flout in the face of the Government and the much-beleaguered people of the Province. We need a new policy on security forces' involvement when uniforms, guns and all the trappings of the paramilitary demonstrations emerge in the Province. What new security measures will be taken when such displays occur?
I am disappointed about the future of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland will always insist on being British. Because of that resolve and determination I am optimistic, even if sometimes sad. There is only one way to secure peace in the Province, and that is to put the objective of the IRA beyond reach. Nothing would deal them a more stinging and more damaging blow than to take Northern Ireland and either give it a Parliament who reflect the method of Government in the United Kingdom, or to bring Northern Ireland fully into the United Kingdom and treat it as full members of this historic and marvellous kingdom.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The former Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who, during what he regarded as a crucial period, was kept in power by the Official Unionists and the Liberals, made a bitter and strange response to the Official Unionists in his speech today. I understood from today's press that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was boycotting today's debate and organising a demonstration in Northern Ireland. By doing so, he thought that he would steal the thunder of the Secretary of State. The right hon.


Member for Cardiff, South-East has outshone even the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He has certainly stolen the headlines in tomorrow's papers.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech will create greater agony, not less, for the people of Northern Ireland. No matter what his intentions may be, his contribution will lead to further hardship in the Province. I did not like the way that he criticised the Ulster people for intransigence and obduracy. During the past 11 or 12 years of the Provisional IRA terrorist campaign they have shown remarkable restraint, patience and forbearance. There is no other part of the United Kingdom and no other part of the world where people would have put up with such gruesome, horrible terror and tried to continue with their daily lives. Full tribute should be paid to them. Instead of virtually giving them the boot out of the United Kingdom, they should be respected as worthy members of the United Kingdom.
I feel annoyed with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East for two reasons. First, he mentioned a Bill of Rights. It is five years ago or more since I advocated that a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom, or even for Northern Ireland alone, should be introduced. A Labour Government were in office. My move was rebuffed by that Government. At that time the right hon. Gentleman was the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Why did not that Government introduce such a Bill? They showed no sympathy for the proposal.
I still advocate a Bill of Rights. I advocate a Bill of Rights based even on the American model, so that all in Northern Ireland will be protected. Protestants, Roman Catholics and Unionists—everyone in Northern Ireland—should be protected by a Bill of Rights as wide as the United States constitution, which tries to protect people of all races and religions.
Secondly, I have argued for years, in the House and outside, and to the Labour Government of whom the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was a member and the Government whom he subsequently led, that the religious apartheid in education in Northern Ireland in schools and teacher training colleges should be brought to an end. That would have been a simple decision to make and the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman led could have made it. However, he shied away from it. Now that he is out of office he can make remarks that will only add to the tribulations of the Ulster people.
I am sorry that the Labour Party, which prides itself on being a liberal party, has rejected the two suggestions that I have made in all seriousness. However, I still hope that they will be adopted. I hope that the Conservative Government will adopt them.
I regret that when Ulster people make reasonable suggestions they are dismissed out of hand and that subsequently spokesmen for either the Conservative or Labour Parties attack Ulster politicians for being obdurate. There are many obdurate politicians inside the Labour Party, according to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. Indeed, he would have them out of the Labour Party altogether, as he considers that they are not true members of the party. I am more liberal than that. I welcome everyone to stay within a party so that there is a wide expression of opinion. That is why I think that all people in Northern Ireland should stay within the present boundaries and within the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) rightly declared that the border was in the hearts and minds of the Ulster people. I agree entirely with that statement. As I said recently during a meeting in Northern Ireland, the existence of Northern Ireland does not depend only on a line drawn on a map. Nor does it depend on the force of arms. The Ulster people, by tradition, history and aspiration, are totally separate from the Irish Republic, which operates under—I quote from a recent edition of The Economist—
a rigid and theocratic constitution".
They have no wish to be part of the Republic. They wish to remain British citizens. The Labour Party policy document seeks to commit the Labour Party to a united Ireland in the long run. That is a damaging policy. It means that the Labour Party is prepared to envisage the removal of citizenship from 1½ million British persons now living in Northern Ireland. That includes 1 million Protestants and many of the Roman Catholics who wish to remain British citizens.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I have read the statement, and I happen to know what it says.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has done so. The editorial of The Times refers to the position that has been adopted by the Labour Party. It states:
The Ulster question goes to the heart of allegiance and
national identity…It is something for which moderate men have recourse to extremes.
The Times is right to give the warning that we cannot dismiss the Ulster people in the way that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East chooses to do.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he would not be influenced by doctrines of despair, but the political move announced by the right hon. Gentleman is clearly dictated by the foolish desire to be seen to be doing something. I regard it as a blunder. I said so when he was making his speech. I was castigated by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East for expressing my opinion at that time. None the less, I was right to do so.
A Northern Ireland Council, as an advisory body, would be powerless. Its responsibility would be merely to give advice. There would be no duty on the Government to take that advice. Members of the council would be paid. No doubt that would induce some to co-operate with the Government by joining the council. It would be a talking shop. That is why I dismissed the suggestion some years ago when it was originally made.
If the council had been in existence a year ago, would it have changed the cold-hearted Government policy that has created unemployment of over 100,000 in the Province? Would it have built the homes that are desperately needed and that are not being built, because of Government cuts? Would it have forced the Government to change their policies on hospitals and schools? Would it have led to the provision of beds for the elderly in our hospitals and to the building of schools for young people? I do not think that the Secretary of State will be able to answer those questions in the affirmative. An advisory body could not have changed Government policy in any respect.
It is no use the Secretary of State's trying to suggest to the Ulster people that this is a great move forward. If there is a political vacuum in Northern Ireland I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should hold an election in the Province. That would not take eight or nine months. An


election could be held and the result would be obtained within a relatively short time. That is what we need. We need an election to a legislature at Stormont. We need a proper democratic legislative body to take on some of the responsibility for governing the Province and to make decisions on unemployment, housing, schools and hospitals.
It is not possible to share power with the SDLP, which is an out-and-out nationalist party. It is a party that runs off to Dublin whenever the opportunity presents itself. It is committed to a United Ireland as quickly as possible. If one cannot gel: power sharing in the Labour Party, and if one cannot get power sharing between the Labour and Tory Parties in Westminster, surely it is unreasonable for Westminster to expect power sharing among irreconcilables in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Winnick: As I understand it, although the hon. Gentleman is opposed to power sharing he accepts the supremecy of the decisions reached by Parliament. If Parliament decided that power sharing was right, surely the citizens, including the majority community, must accept that, otherwise loyalty to Britain amounts to little. That loyalty would be only on the basis of approving what one wants to approve and not otherwise.

Mr. Kilfedder: There are many examples of Parliament's making an unwise decision. Normally it does not take long for such decisions to be changed. When it is out of office, Labour tells the Conservatives that it will change an unacceptable decision as soon as it gets into office. Labour goes out into the country to argue against the present Government's policy. That is what I am committed to. I am a Member of Parliament and a British citizen. I support this country and I support most of the decisions of the House. However, I am prepared to argue against the decisions of the House anywhere in the United Kingdom or elsewhere and to make sure that decisions are changed, if they are foolish. Labour does that time after time.
I should like to share in the tribute to the police, the UDR and the Regular Army, whose members are serving in Northern Ireland. They have shown great courage. I do not believe that one can thank them too often for the job that they are doing in the Province.
It should be remembered that in the recent election to the Dail two hunger strikers were returned to that Parliament. Those people were from border constituencies, which seems to confirm that bandit territory is not only in and around Crossmaglen. There are areas in the Irish Republic where the Provisional IRA can operate easily and can launch an attack across the border against people in Northern Ireland. It is high time that the Irish Republic extradited wanted men from the Republic to Northern Ireland. Otherwise it is no use the new Prime Minister of the Irish Republic making conciliatory statements. He has to give proof that he wishes to maintain friendly relations with this country. He can do that easily by extraditing the wanted terrorists who are operating on the other side of the border.
The IRA is no friend of any parliamentarian, whether in this country or in the Irish Republic. If it managed to destroy Northern. Ireland by one means or another it would operate to destroy the Irish Republic to create an all-Ireland Marxist republic.
One matter should be noted. A number of IRA gunmen who murdered policemen in the Irish Republic were

sentenced to death. In the most recent case, that sentence was commuted to a term of imprisonment of 40 years without remission. That compares unfavourably—or favourably—with Northern Ireland, because in Northern Ireland a convicted terrorist receives a lighter sentence. He receives remission and, worst of all, he is eligible for remission that is more favourable than that available to other criminals in Northern Ireland. Surely that should be ended. The Government might learn something from the Irish Republic. They should make sure that terrorists who commit murder receive sentences such as 40 years without remission.

Mr. Stephen Ross: It is fashionable in this kind of debate to state party political policies. Therefore, I have gone back to our manifesto of over two years ago. I have welcomed the debate so far, particularly the contributions of certain distinguished Members who, like me, are frustrated by the continual entrenched attitudes that have been shown—the speech of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) was such a contribution—by certain Northern Ireland political leaders in the House and elsewhere. They have rightly challenged the continuation of that criticism of British Governments, whether they are of a Labour or a Conservative hue.
Our record in Northern Ireland, over the past 10 or 11 years, whatever it may have been over the past centuries, has been one of honest endeavour. We have tried to do the right thing. Things have gone wrong on occasions, but it has not been for lack of trying. It is about time the elected Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies recognised that. I can understand how frustrated many hon. Members representing other constituencies in Great Britain feel about the present situation.
In our manifesto at the last general election we proposed, as an interim measure, that a 15- to 20-member advisory council should be elected by the people of Northern Ireland using proportional representation—the single transferable vote. I do not know why the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was not convinced about proportional representation. Obviously we did not win that battle during the Lib-Lab pact, but weshall continue to fight for it. Further, we stated in our manifesto:
Such a council would be large enough to let every significant viewpoint have a voice but small enough for all its members to have real discussion with each other as well as with the Secretary of State and other political representatives.
The council would:
1.Represent the views of the people of Northern Ireland to the Secretary of State and advise him accordingly, and
2.discuss how a constitutional conference should be set up to consider the means by which a generally acceptable form of Government for the Province could be developed.
There must be no capitulation to violence. Direct rule must continue for the time being. The civil Power must be given military assistance for as long as required. Britain will not force Northern Ireland to unite with the Republic of Ireland. All elections …should be by the PR(STV) system. Continuing emphasis must be placed on the achievement of full human rights.
As the House heard today, the Secretary of State announced the formation of such a council not by direct election, as we would have preferred; the members are to be elected indirectly, in that they are to be taken from the various councils from Westminster and from the European Parliament. I agree with the hon. Member for Down, North that it would have been better to go for a directly


elected council. I also think that a membership of 50 would be too big. I am afraid that that may lead to the sort of squabbles that we have seen in this House when there have been only 11 people involved! It might have been better if the number were about 20.
Apart from those criticisms, I welcome the action that the Secretary of State has taken and I hope that it will work. He is right in saying that it is of vital importance to involve political leaders in Northern Ireland in a more meaningful way than at present. I pray that they will respond.
I share the view held by many people in political life in Northern Ireland and in the South that while the hunger strike continues in the Maze any further significant political initiatives would be better not to be embarked upon. It is how to end that hunger strike without conceding political status that is the immediate problem.
In his statement on the hunger strikers in the Maze on 30 June the Secretary of State said, on page 5:
there is scope for yet further development of the regime within the Maze.
After three visits to that prison, I do not know what further concessions can be permitted without putting the governor of the prison and the prison officers who are charged with maintaining security in an almost impossible position. I tried to make that point at Question Time the other day.
I did not realise this until I went to the Maze about a month ago, but allowing prisoners to wear civilian clothing, which we provide, means that prison officers have great difficulty in distinguishing between prisoners and civilians working in the prison. There has been the break-out at the Crumlin Road gaol, for which no doubt someone will be held responsible. It was also put to me that if we give hunger strikers and other prisoners their own clothing, a problem arises when it has to be cleaned. Will they insist on wearing a military-style uniform? Such matters are difficult. If there is to be greater freedom in the wings, control of the prison will almost be lost.
That is why I support the amendment of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) for an inquiry into the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. That is the area that we should be tackling. We should take careful note of the report on the conference held on 13 June, although one or two quotations are not satisfactory. It was chaired by Lord Gardiner, a distinguished former Lord Chancellor. We should consider particularly the paragraphs relating to the Diplock courts. I believe that it would be preferable to have three judges and not one at the initial stages of the hearing. We should also consider the recommendations on scheduled offences. Those are two areas that an inquiry could look into.
It is the system of justice operating in Northern Ireland that normally friendly countries such as the United States and members of the EEC do not understand. They do not understand why we have done away with the jury system. I understand why, but in some areas we may be able to bring it back. That matter is also discussed in the document. We should try to allay legitimate fears expressed by our friends.
When I went around the Maze with my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Party, we saw the hunger striker who is now in his fiftieth-odd day. We asked him whether there was any concession within the regime, apart

from political status, that would persuade him to come off his hunger strike. The answer was "No". He made it quite clear that there was none. We asked him why he believed that he should have special status. His reply was that it was because he was sentenced by special courts that were different from those that normally operate. That is an argument that is being used in the United States and elsewhere, and is another reason to support the amendment. I do not see what could be lost by an inquiry, and there is a lot to be gained. I do not believe that within the prison regime we can make further meaningful concessions.
I accept, of course, that we must continue with direct rule. We have no choice. However, efforts to establish an elected, devolved Administration must continue. On 23 May The Economist, which has been very good on Northern Ireland, had a long article entitled, "A Bridge to Ireland", which set out a course of action that appealed to me. The Government or their advisory council, when it is set up, should study it seriously.
When the situation permits, the Government will need to force the pace. From the opinion polls in The Sunday Times last weekend, of which we must take some note, it appears that, properly and carefully presented, a power-sharing Executive may be endorsed at a referendum, despite the likely wrecking tactics of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who does not appear even to wish to grace us with his presence.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman pays considerable attention to an opinion poll in The Sunday Times of about 1,000 people. An opinion poll was carried out of the whole electorate of Northern Ireland a short time before that, which made it clear that they did not want power sharing.

Mr. Ross: I am not at all sure that that is so. I believe that opinion in Northern Ireland is far more moderate than is sometimes shown by election results. People are, unfortunately, forced into one corner or another. I believe that we should put the matter to the test. I believe that another border poll is due in 1983.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.

Mr. Ross: It could be.

Mr. Powell: That is different.

Mr. Ross: We said that we would have one every 10 years, so we could have one in 1983. Let us bring it forward one year to 1982 and include a question about the acceptability of a Northern Ireland Assembly involving power sharing at Executive level. Let us also state our willingness to appoint Northern Ireland politicians at Westminister to the Northern Ireland Office. I hope that that will meet with the approval of hon. Members.
We are always in trouble, because we are so British trying to run the Irish, or some section of the Irish. It took the right hon. Member for Mansfield a long time, and he now knows a lot about Northern Ireland, but it is a difficult situation for people going in raw. If we are to increase the number of elected Northern Ireland Members to 17, why not at least involve some of them working the Northern Ireland Office from Stormont? I also repeat that I want to see elections on a proportional representation basis.
I very much welcome the election of Dr. Garret Fitzgerald as Taoiseach. I hope that we shall quickly get down to talks with him. His approach to the problems of


the North over the past few years have a great deal to commend them. Some sort of loose federalism with dual rights of citizenship is the answer in the long run, but it will have to be a careful step-by-step approach—and I had noted that down before the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East spoke. Any talk now of a united Ireland is profoundly mistaken.
I also reject as unworkable possible changes in the boundaries of the border, the idea of which was recently floated in The Observer by Conor Cruise O'Brien. That we should seriously suggest that 30,000 or more Protestants in Fermanagh and South Tyrone should face upheaval if they will not accept Dublin rule is totally unthinkable in the 1980s.
The preservation of freedom as we know it in Ireland is under serious threat, and that applies just as much to the South as to the North. It is time that our friends in the Western world understood that simple fact. We must all feel great sympathy for Members of the Protestant population in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and elsewhere along the border. They clearly feel threatened as possibly never before, and that is appreciated and understood by responsible Catholics in the Province, of which there are many. Hon. Members know them and know their views on the result of the election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and their absolute horror at what happened then and since.
I am sure that every hon. Member is angered by the likes of Mayor Koch and others, who talk of England getting out of Ireland. That is sheer nonsense. Many of us are interrelated, and it is about time that they understood that. I have two Irish grandsons. When they return to Southern Ireland I do not want them to go to a country that is on the verge of civil war. It is interesting that the new Foreign Secretary in Eire was actually born in England.
The people of Britain desperately want a solution. It is the duty of politicians of all parties and in all quarters to work together to provide it.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made a significant contribution to the debate. He started by saying that the people of Northern Ireland should be treated as if they could make up their own minds and that their opinions should be listened to and respected. However, it, unfortunately became apparent from what he then said that he had not paid sufficient heed to them himself.
Opinion polls have been mentioned, but the one thing that they have consistently shown over the past few years is that neither the Prostestant nor the Catholic community supports an independent Ulster. To suggest that that might be a way of getting the IRA to put down their guns and for peace and prosperity to come to Northern Ireland is to live in a dream world. I cannot imagine how the former Prime Minister, having some experience of Northern Ireland, could possibly suggest that that was a way out. He said that there was a pattern in Northern Ireland that politicians who made suggestions about what could take place usually found that very soon after they had made them someone would reject their suggestions out of hand. The two hon. Members who spoke after him did exactly that, and I make the hat trick.
The right hon. Gentleman's suggestions were rejected before he ever stood up. The border poll in Northern Ireland has been mentioned. If one believes in taking the

view of the people of Northern Ireland, that was a most decisive vote in favour of the proposition that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. Almost 600,000 electors in Northern Ireland chose that as the future constitutional position, whereas a mere 6,000 chose to be part of the Republic of Ireland. It must therefore be made clear at the outset that the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and they will not have that position eroded. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) pointed out, such a suggestion would be seen by the people of Northern Ireland in general as a halfway house to a united Ireland because their position would be so much weaker in an independent Ulster.
The comments of the official Opposition spokesman the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), seemed to indicate that he was slightly embarrassed by some of the remarks of members of his party and by the content of a report from one of their study groups. If he was not embarrassed he certainly should have been, because there is a grave inconsistency in their position. The right hon. Gentleman accepts that the people of Northern Ireland have a right to self-determination, yeti he determines that they should go along one particular road—towards a united Ireland. To help them go there he will try to win their hearts and minds. He neglected to tell us how he intended to win their hearts and minds towards the goal of a united Ireland, but he was certainly saying that he intended to win them away from wanting to be a part of the United Kingdom. That is the logic of his position and he will have to live with it. It is totally inconsistent to say that one believes in self-determination and then to tell the people of Northern Ireland that that is the way that they will have to go. If his answer is a united Ireland by consent I can tell him that there is no consent in Northern Ireland to the idea of a united Ireland and that he will have to think of other policies to deal with the matter.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made some suggestions about political progress. He proposed what might be described as a talking shop or gabbling house to deal with Northern Ireland's problems. He would give the power of talking to the politicians in Northern Ireland, to invite their views on certain matters and to let them consider legislation. I thought that that was what the 12 Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland were elected to do—although one of them was wont to decline to do so, and there are now only 11. It is the duty of Members of Parliament to give their views on issues. The only suggestion that the Secretary of State made was that his proposal might be used to, look at the future government of Northern Ireland.
I accept that the Secretary of State is trying to make progress, but I am concerned that the progress that he is trying to make is more in line with the answer that he gave to an intervention—that there would be an opportunity for the people at these talks to have an input into the Dublin joint studies. I wonder whether that is the real motive in this new initiative. It is clear from statements made by the new Prime Minister—the House will excuse me for not using the Gaelic word—of the Republic of Ireland that he wants to have a Northern Ireland Unionist input. Does the Secretary of State intend to give him that input by setting up this consultative assembly or advisory council?
The Secretary of State referred to the Dublin talks. Here I must at once take issue with him. Members of the


Northern Ireland Unionist community were rightly concerned at what took place in Dublin on 8 December. They were concerned from the outset when they saw the high-powered nature of the delegation that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State had with them in Dublin. They were concerned when they read the communiqué issued after the talks were completed, which said that
the totality of relationships within these islands
was to be discussed between the two Governments.
The word "totality" can mean only one thing. If it is given its dictionary definition, the "totality of relationships" must include the constitutional relationship. If it does, there is a marked inconsistency between the communiqué which the Prime Minister signed and to which the Secretary of State was a party and their comments today and over the past months.
If the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, when winding up wishes to brush away the confusion that arises as a result of this, he must explain to the people of Northern Ireland from the Dispatch Box what he means by the "totality of relationships". Was that a mistake? Did he not mean the word "totality"? Did he wish to exclude the constitutional relationship? If we were not already alarmed by the nature of the delegation and the words of the communiqu00E9; we should certainly have been alarmed by the words of the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic, Brian Lenihan, and the then Prime Minister of the Republic, Charles Haughey. They made it clear that the purpose behind the talks was to move towards some kind of federal or confederal Ireland. The Secretary of State will have to face this because he never answered those remarks when they were made. That is why the Unionist population of Northern Ireland was gravely disturbed by what took place in the Dublin talks and has had no faith in the joint studies arising from them.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who is now absent, referred to what tomorrow's newspaper headlines might be. He suggested that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East would probably succeed in getting those headlines. I suspect that he will. On the other hand, the Secretary of State may get them. But then again, given the matter under discussion, it is possible that the newspaper headlines will concern the fact that somebody else has been killed in Northern Ireland. That is as likely as any other eventuality.
Perhaps we should devote some attention to the situation in Northern Ireland from the point of view of the right to live. More than 2,130 people have been done to death in Northern Ireland. It is easy to say that, as it is so quickly said, but behind that cold statistic there is grave hardship, sadness and despair and a great deal of pain for the tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who have been maimed and mutilated as a result of terrorism in the Province.
The Liberal spokesman referred to his visit to Her Majesty's prison at Long Kesh and to the fact that there were special arrangements in the courts of Northern Ireland, but one cannot get away from the fact that there are special arrangements in the courts of Northern Ireland because of the very nature of terrorism. It ill becomes the IRA or any other terrorist group to complain about the judicial system which has had to be changed to deal with the terrorism which they themselves have brought forth.

As the Secretary of State said, the answer is in their hands. If they stop their terrorism, the normal processes of law and order can apply in Northern Ireland and the normal judicial processes can take place. The Secretary of State can be sure that although the propaganda put forward by the IRA in America and elsewhere may for a time be accepted as the truth—that there is oppression in the Maze prison and there are people who are not being dealt with in a humanitarian manner—at the end of the day the truth will come through.
Once and for all, the Secretary of State should put compromise out of his mind. He said again today that he has already moved on concessions. Far be it from me to warn him at this stage, when it is too late, but the right hon. Gentleman made an error when he did so, because when he moved from his original position towards the objectives of the IRA he gave the IRA a signal that if it asked for more and protested further it would arrive near or at its goal. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, even at this stage, that further concessions could be made to those who have been responsible for the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland he is once more submitting to terrorism, blackmail and the bully-boy tactics of the IRA.
I hope that when he replies the Minister of State will make it clear that not one of the five demands put forward by the IRA will be met and that no point will be conceded. Any concession will attract the wrath of the law-abiding Northern Ireland community. They, and I suspect the House, will fully support the Government if they take a strong stand against the IRA.
I should like to make one comment about Northern Ireland's political future. I have indicated grave doubts about the Secretary of State's plans, founded on the basis that, first, he envisages a non-elected body and, secondly, that it will be without any power. However, while it has no power it will have responsibility, because when it is in operation we shall not be able to tell the people of Stoneyford Street, Lord Street or anywhere else that it does not have responsibility for the subjects on which it speaks.
Such people will believe that this body will be responsible for health, education and everything else. Its members will also be expected to deal with the constituency problems that will arise. Therefore, they will have to face the brickbats, even though they will have no power to deal with the matters over which they will be asked to deliberate. While the Northern Ireland Office may be happy to be shielded from the effects of its policies, that is not a position into which the Northern Ireland politician would like to get unless he has responsibility to do something about it.
There is another thing that appals me about the Secretary of State's suggestion. The people of Northern Ireland have made it clear that they want a devolved Government. They want to see accountability in the Province. Northern Ireland Ministers do not receive any votes from the Northern Ireland electorate. That must be changed so that the people who vote can get rid of those who are carrying out policies with which they do not agree. There must be accountability in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State has also suggested that the new Northern Ireland Council should be representative. In what way will it be representative? Will it be established on the basis of the recent local government elections, or the European elections, or the Westminster elections? The Secretary of State should face the obvious conclusion that the best way of achieving a representative group is to elect


it through the ballot box. I cannot accept that it will be 18 months before legislation to that effect can go through the House.
I have no particular reason for believing that the Secretary of State's policy will succeed. I shall wait until I have seen it in more detail before suggesting whether we could participate. I shall at least await the right hon. Gentleman's detailed reaction, but I have very little faith in non-elected bodies with no power.
It would be wrong for me to finish without making a suggestion. However, I shall not go into detail, because if I were to do so it might be ruled out in some quarters. My suggestion is that the Secretary of State should set up a convention, with clear terms of reference about the report that it should make about a future constitution for Northern Ireland. It should be done on the basis of the 1975 convention. However, that convention failed because it did not have clear terms of reference. It was told to achieve the most widespread support, and it did so. However, after the new convention has presented its report the Secretary of State should put it to the people in a referendum sc that they can decide.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East believes that the people should have the right to decide. He believes that they are mature and responsible and that they should take the decision. Let that referendum be on the same basis as the referendum on devolution in Scotland and Wales. There should at least be clear terms of reference about the degree of acceptability that is necessary to implement a constitutional proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman establishes such a convention, puts its report to the people in a referendum and achieves the necessary degree of acceptability, le will have the basis to go forward and put such a proposal into operation.

Mr. David Winnick: I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will forgive me if I do not comment immediately on what he said. However, I shall refer to some of his remarks a little later.
The first essential need is to resolve the hunger strike. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said that in his opinion no new initiative could be taken. I do not agree. I have already stated that I am opposed to political status. However, it is important to appreciate—I think that the Government do—that there can be no further political progress until the hunger strike is out of the way. The Secretary of State was right to speak about the violence that has arisen as a result of the hunger strike, as well as the violence done to themselves by those who have engaged in the strike. But it is also necessary to understand the immense harm that will be done to Britain's reputation abroad so long, as the hunger strike continues.
It may well be argued that people in the United States, France and other democratic countries do not understand our case. That may be so. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding and misrepresentation, deliberate or otherwise, about the history of Northern Ireland. However, I believe that there is some understanding among people abroad and that, nevertheless, they have come to the view that the British Government could make some concessions that could resolve the hunger strike.
One factor in all this which should not be overlooked—I do not think that it has been mentioned so far—is the recent by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I understand that a Minister is considering going

to the United States to put its case. It is all very well for the Government to tell foreign opinion that the IRA has no support and that the hunger strikers represent an isolated section within Northern Ireland's minority community. Their response will be "But what about the result in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, when the late Mr. Sands received more than 30,000 votes and won the by-election?" Undoubtedly, that has been a factor in the minds of many people, including a number of those in Britain.
Like my hon. Friends, I believe that steps must he taken to reduce military involvement. I am not in favour of "troops out" and neither, I understand, is the minority community. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) explained why the troops went in 12 years ago. We know why they went in and which section of the community they protected at the time. However, we should try to reduce military involvement and to find a political framework in order to work towards an acceptable course for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East was right to say that the Secretary of State's suggestion was unacceptable. In fact, the initiative is already dead. The moment that the right hon. Gentleman announced his intentions about the advisory council there was comment on my left and comment from other Ulster Members. I remember that about 18 months ago the Secretary of State put forward an initiative. There was a series of exchanges and I was one of the last hon. Members to be called to speak. I said that, given the hostility of Ulster Members, it was obvious that that initiative would not succeed. Unfortunately, ray words turned out to be right. With all respect, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is not likely to meet with any success.
The reunification of Ireland is desirable. I know that such a view immediately meets with hostility from representatives of the majority community. I understand their hostility and total opposition. None of us has any illusions on that score. However, it should be clearly stated from the Labour Benches that the reunification of Ireland is a desirable objective. I go further than that. It was wrong to partition Ireland in 1921. People speak about needing the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. What consent was there in Ireland, as a whole, to partition?
I do not wish constantly to refer to history. However, we all know that partition was carried out not on the basis of the historic nine counties of Ulster but on the basis of the Six Counties. That was done deliberately in order to give an inbuilt majority to those in Northern Ireland who opposed any form of unification. That is understandable from that point of view. However, some people might have said that that was a form of gerrymandering. Partition certainly did not receive the consent of the people of Ireland as a whole. It is important to put that on the record. People continually imply that we should not do anything about Northern Ireland without the agreement of the majority.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the boundaries of Northern Ireland were agreed not just by Unionist politicians but by the Government of the then Free State, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Winnick: Partition was not carried out with the consent of the people of Ireland as a whole. In 1918 the


last election was held which involved the whole of Ulster with the rest of Ireland. It would seem from the result that a majority were not in favour of partition. If anything, in the nine counties of Ulster there was a slight majority for the nationalist Party.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's dedication to Henry VIII's administrative sub-division of the island of Ireland. That is the only basis of the nine counties of Ulster. In 1920 the United Kingdom was partitioned. In 1920 there was no Ireland to be partitioned. The United Kingdom was partitioned with the consent of the United Kingdom's electorate.

Mr. Winnick: That is one interpretation. Anyone who knows what happened in Southern Ireland in 1922 will know that an agreement arose between the Southern Ireland representatives and Britain which led to the Free State. Although the partition was undertaken prior to the formation of the Irish Free State, I return to my previous point that partition was carried out without the consent of the people of Ireland as a whole. They were not asked for their views.
I understand the need to ensure that the unity of Ireland is carried out by consent and not by terrorism. We do not disagree about that. We do not support or sympathise with the IRA. Even if it were possible, we should not want unification to be brought about by the bomb and the bullet. That is not our wish in any way, shape or form.
What sort of united Ireland would emerge if it resulted from terrorism and if the majority community in Northern Ireland was dragged into unification with all the resulting bitterness and hostility? What stability would there be in such a united Ireland? We have no illusions. We understand the problems and know how complex the situation is. That must be said, because there is a tendency to accuse the Labour Party of having simplistic solutions, slogans and so on. We understand the difficulties, but we are trying to find an acceptable solution.
Parliament's decision on power sharing—taken in the 1970s—was right and proper. It is all very well to talk about loyalty to Britain and to describe oneself as a Loyalist, but if Parliament, rightly or wrongly, decided that power sharing should be the form of government in Northern Ireland. the decision should have been accepted. How was power sharing destroyed? It has been said that we argue against the Government. Obviously, when the Conservative Party is in office it argues against us. Sometimes the arguments are fierce and take place both inside and outside the House. There are marches and demonstrations. Power sharing, however, was not destroyed in any constitutional or democratic way. It was destroyed on the streets in 1974 by sections of the majority community.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It was destroyed by those who often give us lectures about law and order.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is right.
It might be asked why there should be power sharing in Northern Ireland. After all, we do not have power sharing in Britain. However, a unique situation exists in Northern Ireland. It resulted from partition and from all the years of Stormont, in which the minority community

believed—with great justification—that it was discriminated against. In Northern Ireland there is proportional representation in local elections. Rightly, we do not have proportional representation in Britain. It exists in Northern Ireland because there is a unique situation there. The only system that is likely to gain the support of the majority of the minority community in Northern Ireland is a form of power sharing. I may be proved wrong—as we can all be—but I believe that the IRA and terrorism can be most effectively undermined by adopting a form of power sharing in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Dunlop: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that during the lifetime of the power-sharing Executive—I was in Stormont at that time—violence escalated. There were more bombings, burnings and killings. During the Executive's lifetime the country was nearly destroyed. Power sharing did not seem to gain the Provisional IRA's approval. It wanted the Executive out. In the IRA's language, it regarded the Executive's members as "reactionary Tories", just as it regarded the Government in the South of Ireland as being made up of reactionary Tories. Therefore, the Executive did not solve the problem, and it will not do so now.

Mr. Winnick: Perhaps some of the violence came from the other side. No doubt some of it came from the IRA. Perhaps its members were fearful that power sharing would succeed and that support for the IRA would be eroded and undermined. We cannot guarantee any system that destroys and erodes terrorism. I can give only my view, namely, that the most effective way of undermining terrorism—I accept that it will not destroy it—is to have a system of power sharing in Northern Ireland.
I therefore believe that power sharing should be put forward for Northern Ireland, if not by the Conservative Government, then certainly by the next Labour Government. However, we should do that with a warning that if power sharing, approved in the normal constitutional democratic manner by the British Parliament, were destroyed, as happened in 1974, we should start to withdraw from Northern Ireland.
In 1974, those who decided to destroy power sharing had nothing to fear. If they had been told beforehand that if power sharing was destroyed Britain would find other ways of ending its involvement in Northern Ireland, perhaps without the consent of the majority towards reunification, there might have been a greater reluctance to destroy power sharing. However, in 1974 the elements of the majority community who were determined to undermine what Parliament had agreed to had nothing to fear.
I shall draw an analogy with what happened in 1965 with Rhodesia and UDI. It was said at that time "You must not declare UDI. You would be naughty boys if you did that, but if you do so we shall not do anything about it". Surprise, surprise!—UDI was declared.
It is necessary to make it clear that any attempt to undo the work of Parliament would mean that an entirely different situation would emerge in which Britain's withdrawal would be carried out in a way that is very different from the way we would wish.
I remind the House of the words of the late Richard Crossman in a debate in 1972 which was the first debate here on direct rule. If I may say so without being patronising, Richard Crossman had a good understanding of a political situation. He said:


The biggest weapon that we have in Britain to persuade the Irish to come to terms is the threat of our withdrawal. No other threat will impress them. The great danger will be that they do not believe it".
He was perfectly right.
There is a growing impatience among British people about what is happening in Northern Ireland. There is a feeling that we are at a dead end, and that we continue in the same situation year after year, with more terrorism, hunger strikes, and international embarrassment for Britain with demonstrations against us in America, France, and various other countries. The British people see no end to it. That is why we must find an acceptable solution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East was right in one respect. In a fine speech he said that there was a need to open up the debate on Northern Ireland. However, I do not believe that his solution is the correct one, because, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East said, there is no consent or agreement among either the majority or the minority communities for an independent Ulster. So it would start with total hostility from both sides.
Moreover, the inevitable question would be asked: if there is an independent Ulster, who would safegaurd the minority community? Would the IRA say "This is an independent Ulster, with nothing to do with Britain. We shall withdraw and go to the Republic or emigrate, perhaps to America?" Nothing of the kind. Indeed, I would go so far as to say, with all due respect to my right hon. Friend, who of course is a very distinguished politician, that his solution would be 1920 and worse. So 1 am not in favour of what he said.

Mr. Dempsey: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) argued that there was a case for an independent Ulster. My hon. Friend says, in reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), that there is no evidence of that. There is evidence in a referendum that the people who live in the Six Counties by two to one wish to remain within the United Kingdom. Would it not be worth while having another referendum in due course to see whether the people of the Six Counties wished to have an independent State?

Mr. Winnick: That is a possibility. Greater experts on Ulster than I could deal with that question, and I imagine that such people would come to the view that any referendum would show that there was no majority. Nevertheless, I do not in principle oppose a referendum as such.
It is nine years since direct rule started, and it is 12 years since troops went in. Inevitably the question must be asked: how much longer will we try to deal with the crisis in Northern Ireland? In four, five, nine, or 12 years' time, will we still be debating the subject in a continuing crisis in the Province, with more hunger strikers, more British soldiers shot, and all the rest of it? We as a country have resolved many colonial problems since 1945. Of course, Northern Ireland is a different and far more complex problem, but it is no good following a path that means the continuation of a dead-end situation which has cost us so much in money, blood and reputation.
We must recognise the need for a completely different approach—power sharing. If that fails, we must seek to reach agreement with Dublin on reunification. However

much one wishes to respect the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland, it may not be possible to find a solution that is acceptable to that majority. If we were to reach agreement in a different situation with Dublin and that agreement were put to the British people in a referendum, I am sure that they would give majority support to any British Government that could resolve the Northern Ireland crisis, if necessary on the basis of reunification and without the consent of the majority of the people of Ulster.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: These annual debates each July should not be simply re-runs of previous debates. They should take account of changes that take place each year.
A number of significant changes have taken place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has opened a dialogue with Dublin, on which she is to be congratulated. I believe that that will be seen as one of the more significant events in the lifetime of this Parliament. Men have committed suicide in the Maze, and are continuing to do so. Political initiatives in the Province in the past 12 months have withered because of insufficient political will to advance. We have taken a propaganda pounding throughout the world. Bipartisan policy appears to be crumbling. A commitment to a united Ireland will have just as far-reaching consequences as the hare-brained scheme of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to replace British troops with foreign troops.
The economy has worsened with attendant increased social tensions. During the past 12 months we have discovered two things about the Northern Ireland economy. The first is that it was not competitive, and the other is that it has suffered because of the violence and the threat of violence in the Province. Lastly, there has been an increased disenchantment with the Province by the people in the rest of Great Britain.
Some things have not changed. The Province is still part of the United Kingdom and will remain so while that is the wish of the majority. No prisoner has been granted political status, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his courage and determination to withstand the pressures that have been placed on him in a singularly unique way during the past 12 months. We still have security problems in the Province. I should like to be associated with those hon. Members who have paid their thanks to the security forces for the way in which they have carried out their activities.
The communities in the Province are still polarised. In part, this is the effect of intermittent irresponsibility by representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland. I suggest, however, that it is also in part due to the fact that not enough countervailing pressure has been applied by this House. Because of the events of the last 12 months, the Government are under increased pressure to determine firm and positive political guidelines for the future. To do that, we have to start with a political paradox that was first given prominence by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
The right hon. Gentleman, during his premiership, propounded two ideas, both of which sounded attractive but which were, in a sense, mutually contradictory. On the one hand, he kept telling the country that Ulster politicians and the Ulster people must solve their own constitutional problems. On the other hand, he kept telling us that this House must govern and take the ultimate decisions. I


would submit that this paradox is still at the centre of the difficulty that we, as a House, face in terms of our relationship with Northern Ireland. It has never been resolved.
The first option—that Ulster politicians must solve their own constitutional problems—is not an idea that we employ in any other part of the United Kingdom. Further, it assumes that there will be a basis of agreement for future action.
The right hon. Gentleman's second proposition does not assume that there will be agreement. It assumes that there will be acquiescence on the part of the Province to any future action. No agreement between the political parties in Northern Ireland is possible, I would submit, almost by definition. Different political parties have got different ends. It is not realistic to sit them around a table and expect them to reach agreement. Each party will hold out in any negotiation in the hope that something more favourable will eventually be offered to it. Acquiescence, however, is a possibility, but acquiescence requires a degree of political will on the part of this House.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Like the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) I did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's solution, largely for the reasons that the hon. Member for Walsall, North enunciated. However, the right hon. Gentleman did say at least two things that needed to be stated in the House. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that it is the job of this House to set the framework and the responsibility of the people in the Province to work out an accommodation within that framework. I believe that this is a fundamental truth with which the House must come to terms.
The people of Northern Ireland, I believe, will acquiesce if they are told the framework within which they have to work. It is the constitutional responsibility of this House to set that framework. To have the necessary degree of political will involves understanding what the people of Ulster want or are willing to accept. It involves continuing and increased consultation in the Province and resisting sectarian pressure from whatever quarter. It also involves shaking off the apathy that afflicts this House on Northern Ireland matters and consequently legislating and governing in the true sense of those words. The House cannot expect progress while so many here and outside do not understand the issues in Northern Ireland. We despair, but we do not seek to educate with equal fervour.
What is the framework for governing? The second element of the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that I found helpful was his statement—I believe this needed to be said—that direct rule, it is now clear, offers no permanent solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. I pose to the House two simple questions. Does anyone really believe that 1 million Protestants in Northern Ireland will give long-term allegiance to a Government that is based in Dublin? The second question is similar. Does anyone really believe that 500,000 Catholics in Northern Ireland will give long-term allegiance to a Government that is based in London? I believe that the answer to both questions is "No". If the answer is "No", we are left only with the possibility of seeking devolution of power to an assembly in Northern Ireland that would safeguard the rights of both

communities and with which they could ultimately identify. That assembly should eventually determine its own relationship with London and with Dublin.
Reference has been made to the poll that appeared in The Sunday Times. Six options on the future government of the Province were presented. Only one of the six commanded majority support in both communities. This was that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom but with its own assembly and guarantees for Catholics. Seventy per cent. of the Protestants and 62 per cent. of the Catholics indicated acceptance of that proposition. The question arises of the form that it should take.
I welcome the initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today as a first step. I welcome it primarily as a recognition that the answer to the two fundamental questions that I posed is "No" and that the only hope for a stable, constructive legislative future for Northern Ireland is in an assembly devolved to the Province. On that ground, I welcome the initiative. I have, however, to say to my right hon. Friend, as I am sure he understands, that, particularly in the Ulster context, a body without responsibility will almost certainly act irresponsibly. At the end of the day, we shall be looking for—I hope that his mind moves along similar channels—a body that ultimately will be elected and to which power can be devolved.
My right hon. Friend knows that I have made proposals to him and to the House previously. I welcome his initiative today as a first step in that direction. A fundamental commitment to a policy of devolution with its political consequences needs to be made by the Government. Only a clear policy decisively followed will stem the disenchantment in the rest of Great Britain. People in Great Britain badly need to be able to believe in a policy that will have some discernible and acceptable end. Otherwise, the political will of the people will continue to erode until they demand action from this House, not because it is virtuous but because it will bring selfish relief.
If the Government are to succeed with their policy of devolution they need to bolster the policy in three ways. The first is in security. When we talk in this House about security, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tells us about the improved security on the border between the security forces in the North and the South. We welcome that. It is an improvement that has taken place in the past year. But my right hon. Friend must also accept that border security is not the only aspect of security which is a worry to the House. It is equally a worry that the South is a safe haven for people who commit dastardly deeds in the North and then seem to be able to escape with impunity.
I know that my right hon. Friend accepts that this state of affairs is an affront to the Protestant community and is regarded, fairly or unfairly, as a sign of Government weakness. I hope that he will make this a matter of early discussion with the new Taoiseach, because we find ourselves in a difficult position. The Sunningdale initiatives failed because it was obvious what was in it for the Catholics, but there was nothing in it for the Protestants. We are in danger of getting ourselves into the same position with the Dublin talks. There seems to be something in them for the Catholics, but there is no security component for the Protestants.
The people in Dublin tell us repeatedly that to have extradition they would have to change their constitution,


and they are not willing to do that. My right hon. Friend knows that there is a second way—to seek a change in the Judges' Rules in the Republic. The Irish Government's statement on establishing the special criminal court on 26 May 1972 reads in part:
While the Special Criminal Court is authorised to make rules governing its own practice and procedure, the ordinary rules of evidence apply in proceedings before it. Specifically, the rules of evidence applicable are the same as those applicable in trials in the Central Criminal Court".
It is open to the Attorney-General in the South to institute a change in the Judges' Rules to make it possible for those who have committed atrocities, crime and violence in the North to be returned to the North. I believe that the new Taoiseach will understand the concern of Ulster Unionists in this regard perhaps better than his predecessor.
The second way in which my right hon. Friend should bolster his move on devolution is in terms of Northern Ireland politics. I listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said about his activities as a Minister. Ministers must involve themselves in the politics of the Province. They involve themselves in activities in other parts of the United Kingdom, so why should be they not do so in the Province too? If the Government's case is to be made, we must develop closer contact with the people—not just ministerial contact, which I know is close, but political contact. Only in that way can we explain, repeatedly, the long-term policy of the Government to the people, and thus increase its chances of acceptance. This House needs to listen more to the authentic voice of Ulster common sense, and less to the equally authentic voice of Ulster rhetoric.
I say to my right hon. Friend "Do not be afraid to challenge politically Ulster Members of Parliament when they act irresponsibly. You will have the support of all your right hon. and hon. Friends when you do so, and, I suspect, the support of many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches". If people are to play politics with the future of Northern Ireland, this House and the Government have a responsibility to combat that in the political arena, not just by issuing statements but with the same fervour as we apply to others with whom we disagree. Ulster Members of Parliament are only Members of Parliament, as I and other Members of this House are, and they need to be treated as much.
The third area to which we need to continue to give concerned interest to bolster the policy of devolution is propaganda. Propaganda is the handmaiden of politics. Despite the favourable editorials in newspapers, we are losing the propaganda battle. One of the reasons is that it is not being conducted by Members of this House. Officials from the Department are useful, clergymen are useful, but ultimately propaganda is politics, and politics is what this House is about.
My right hon. Friend was kind and generous to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and me when we led the first expedition to the United States in December to talk about Government policy. Other hon. Members have followed us. If those visits were as helpful as right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said they were, they should be repeated. There should be more of them, for we, and we alone, can talk with the authority and the political

decisiveness that are necessary to combat the adverse propaganda to which we are being exposed, particularly in the United States and Europe.
There is no question but that we are losing the battle of propaganda on the hunger strike. I reaffirm my support for the Government's stand—no political status. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right. He must not give way in any circumstances. I found his statement on 30 June most helpful. It was a clear statement of Government policy, except for one sentence. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister of State sums up he will be able to clarify it for us. My right hon. Friend said, on the last page of the statement:
It has been suggested that changes should be made now in the areas of work, clothing and association as a gesture in We hope of ending the hunger strike. The Government does listen to the views of responsible people. The great difficulty about such a move is that it would encourage the hope that political status based on the so-called 'five demands' could still be achieved.
What bothered me about that last sentence was that it seemed to imply that the great difficuly about moving was that the move might be misunderstood. The line must be drawn where maximum humanitarianism and the principle of no political status coincide. There we should take our stand, and we should not be moved.
If the present prison conditions represent that relationship, they cannot and must not be changed during or after a hunger strike. But if they do not represent that relationship, they should be changed to make them the irreducible minimum that it is the equivalent of no political status. In either event, the House will support my right hon. Friend when he says "No political status, now or ever."
We shall of course support the Government tonight, but if in 12 months the lists with which I began—the lists of things that have changed and things that have not changed—are unaltered, the consequence for our nation and Northern Ireland in particular will be even more serious.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The background to the debate is different from that which existed last year. Last July the terrorists were continuing their programme of genocide and the murder of law-abiding citizens, particularly along the frontier of the United Kingdom. The murderers' plan to move back that frontier continues. However, it has had little effect on the courage and tenacity of those stalwart citizens who go about their duties—I do not say without fear but with determination to withstand the assaults of the cowards who fear even their own helpless victims.
The master thugs had to acknowledge that their murder and bombing was getting them no nearer their objectives. They had to dream up another phase that would attract the fellow-travellers who have always been poised and ready to come to the rescue when the killers are in a tight corner. That led to hunger strike mark 1 at Christmas. That was badly bungled. It went wrong. Mark 2 reached its climax at about Easter and was more successful. Now we are being treated to hunger strike mark 3.
Responsible people in all parts of the British Isles and in all parts of the world, particularly in areas that have been afflicted by ruthless terror, are looking to Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. So far they have not looked in vain. They have looked to this Parliament—and again they have not looked in vain—for


a firm stand and a refusal to elevate convicted terrorists to a position of superiority over all other criminals. That is what it is all about.
On the political side there has also been a change since last year. On 9 July we combined the renewal of the interim period extension order with a debate on the White Paper proposals for further discussion. Some hon. Members trumpeted about the likelihood of securing the restoration of a devolved Government before the end of 1980. Do they now stop to reflect on what would have been the fate of any such restructuring had it been in existence in April or May this year at the time of the hunger strike crisis?
How could the Republican element in that power-sharing structure play a continuing role when the SDLP, for example, had to chicken-out of a parliamentary by-election? If the power sharers had plodded on, would not they have been hammered by their electorates and suffered the fate suffered by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)?
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) chided gently those of us who expressed a little merriment when the Secretary of State announced his advisory council. Perhaps in a moment of quiet reflection the hon. Member should ask whether his instinct as a good parliamentarian would lead him to believe that such an advisory council would be a useful device in any circumstances.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North talked about power sharing. I cannot remember any active disobedience by the Loyalist community during the existence of the power-sharing Executive, although it did not exist for long.
The power-sharing Executive failed for two reasons. First, we know from the memoirs of those who participated that it would have been only a matter of time before it was blown apart by its internal dissensions. Dissension and split were avoided by the simple device of avoiding anything remotely constructive or divisive. The Executive could not have gone on year after year without taking decision of some significance about the future of Northern Ireland.
Perhaps the most important reason why it failed was that it was rejected constitutionally by the Northern Ireland electorate, which voted in a British general election to return to the House of Commons 11 out of 12 Members of Parliament pledged in their opposition to the power-sharing Executive and to the proposed council of Ireland.
Some hon Members will say that it is alleged that the Executive was brought down by the strike. I say to those who bore some responsibility at that time that if they had not refused to acknowledge the verdict of that general election result the strike would have been unnecessary and would not have happened.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that the Labour Party's objective was to win the hearts of the Northern Ireland people. The House will be prepared to take it from me that the Labour Party won that battle long ago. The right hon. Member for Mansfield played a leading part in that, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) who was, perhaps, one of the most successful occupants of Stormont castle since 1972. We must not forget the right hon. Member for

Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I am almost tempted to call him my right hon. Friend, because we have enjoyed a close friendship on personal terms if not in political terms, for many years. As the head and Prime Minister of the Labour Government he did a great deal to convince the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly the self-styled, so-called working-class people. that the British Labour Party had their interests at heart.
I cannot believe that the Labour Party now intends to turn its back on all that it achieved. I do not believe that it has embarked on a reciprocal course. That would mean—if we carry the words of the right hon. Member for Mansfield to their logical conclusion—that the Labour Party would have to reverse its course and set about repelling the self-styled working-class people in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Labour Party will not do that.
Some members of the Labour Party have taken a less subtle line. They have adopted a typical Irish attitude. They are saying "We would like you to leave us. If you do not agree to leave us, we shall make you agree."
The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag by accident, because at first he said that "other matters" would be considered by this weird committee or council. Until then we did not understand that he had it in mind to add to the responsibilities and tasks of that council the products of the study groups.
I have been at a loss to understand what the new Prime Minister of the Republic meant when he came to power and talked about involving what he called the political representatives of Northern Ireland. Now we know. The vehicle is to be labelled the Northern Ireland Council but in reality it is the Council of Ireland mark 2 Sunningdale. We now know the reason for the paving operation of the past two weeks throughout Northern Ireland. It was ludicrous and amusing to see all these little men popping up all over the place complete with their briefs and scripts—which many of them read badly—gleefully announcing that the Northern Ireland Office was at it again. I admit that the Northern Ireland Office manipulation was more skilful this time.
Last Monday evening the Secretary of State and I attended a social function in Belfast city hall. I was given a preview—not, I hasten to add, by the Secretary of State but by a spokesman of a party with which I have considerable sympathy. However, that party managed to secure the return of only two councillors in the whole of Northern Ireland in the May elections for local government. That gentleman informed me that he had been invited to another jamboree—as he put it—at Stormont. He said "This time we are all going".
One could think of many other examples of that sort of thing that have been tripped out over the past two weeks. This time the tactics were different. They brought over the small fry first. The attraction was no doubt that they would be kept in business and new life would be breathed into them, for some were sadly in need of a further injection and transfusion.
This morning The Times told us that our invitations were on the way. The Secretary of State confirmed that, but we can blame the Post Office for their non-arrival. Never mind; better late than never.
Every hon. Member has a right to ask why the Secretary of State has arrived at this extraordinary decision. He may have been reading that brief supplied to a former occupant of his office who told me that my suggestion of starting modestly and giving real powers to local government as


a start was sensible. He said "Jim, that is a sensible and practical idea. but the weakness is that you can't find any excuse for paying the blighters".
The Secretary of State advanced another curious argument, that there was a need—I hope that I quoted his words correctly—"to re-engage the people of Northern Ireland in politics." I do not know what that means, because I always have the impression, going from this big island to the northern part of that smaller island, that politicians are thicker on the ground in Northern Ireland and in Ireland as a whole than they are in any other part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] "Thicker" in many senses—certainly more numerous, though some have fallen by the wayside and some are not with us any more. The Secretary of State confessed that it was not possible to confer executive or legislative powers on an elected body. It was not possible to confer responsibility, but it was, apparently, possible to confer and encourage irresponsibility. That is the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) because that is a corollary to denying responsibility. They will be irresponsible if they are denied responsibility. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) also made a valid point. He said that they would be held responsible—that is a different thing and they will know that to their cost—because people would say "Never mind that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Never mind the Prime Minister and her monetary policy. We elected you directly or indirectly and you are there to look after our interests. You are failing in your duty". The hon. Member is correct.
On a higher constitutional level, there is what is termed the right to warn and advise. At our much more lowly level we have a duty to do that. We have a duty to warn but not to threaten, and a duty to advise but not obstruct.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, with typical modesty, admitted that he might be slightly out of touch. I shall not comment in detail on his serious suggestions and proposals. Many of them were novel and, as he admitted, untried. Sitting in my position behind him, I gained the impression that some of his hon. Friends probably felt that he was advocating the restoration of Stormont with all the constraints removed. I do not think that that was his intention, hut at the same time in the not-too-distant future he may want to correct that impression, much as I should like to see him holding to that view.
I hope that I shall match the right hon. Gentleman in his modesty when I say that Ulster Unionists do not ask and have never asked for special category status politically. We do not refuse to work with people who hold views different from ours. There is no unwillingness on our part to co-operate with others in areas where cooperation is possible. There is no more friction in our district councils than there is at present in the Greater London Council. In the district councils in Northern Ireland the conflict is two-way but in the Greater London Council the conflict is triangular. I shall not harrow feelings by going into that too deeply.
Ulster Members of Parliament, whatever their views, represent their constituents, whatever their views. They do their duty as impartially as their colleagues representing other parts of the United Kingdom. If we all seek progress, which has been the theme of the debate—it has not depressed me in any way—it can be made in two contexts, namely, at local government level and at parliamentary level, with all that that means to an elected representative.
The Secretary of State said that in his 1979–80 conference it was not possible to find the level of agreement necessary for the instalment of a legislative and executive structure. That may be his conclusion, but we wish that it had been otherwise. I cannot see the reason for people saying "If you and I had attended the conference, somehow or another agreement would have been reached". It is not sensible to suggest that introducing a third or fourth element makes it more probable that a conclusion will be reached.
Northern Ireland's greatest overpowering need is stability, in both the political and the security senses. The second great need is a gradual coming together and working together. That is not impossible. The advice that I shall tender to the Secretary of State, if he asks for it during the coming weeks, is that he should exercise the patience to which he referred earlier. We all accept that he possesses a great deal of patience. He should exercise it and begin to build, brick by brick, on solid foundations that will endure.

Mr. W. Benyon: We have heard a great deal today about the step-by-step approach. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) used those words, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The long and tortured history of Ireland shows all too clearly that the step-by-step approach does not work. Any such move is always pre-empted by Irish politicians. We have heard some of the reactions. Whatever one thought about what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said in his remarkable speech, whatever one thought of his solution, he would not be surprised by the reactions to his speech. They were predictable reactions. The step-by-step approach, which is so beloved on this side of the Irish Channel, is always pre-empted elsewhere and becomes one step forwards and two steps backwards.
I am prepared to reserve my opinion about the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a consultative council. I confess that it has a faint musty whiff of the old colonial days of the Governors Council, which was always a facade behind which nationalism boiled and bubbled happily. I do not believe that that is the way we should go.
There are only two choices facing the Government. One is to continue with direct rule which, whatever its variants, means continued government from Westminster and a progressive harmonisation of law and administration with other parts of the United Kingdom. The second involves a much more radical approach, which has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). That must involve the protection of the minority in some form or another. Whatever choice is adopted, it is essential that a firm decision is made soon, and adhered to, because the current uncertainty in the Province is all too dangerous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said that there should be no change and that there is no need to consider any alternative. I used to favour that view but I have changed my mind strongly during the past 12 months. I have done so just because of the parlous economic state of the Province. That is getting worse and worse. Gone are the days when those resident in Ulster could look with contempt over the border and see a much more backward and impoverished South. The roles are reversed and I think that the gap will become wider.
Secondly, the accession of the United Kingdom and the Republic to the European Economic Community has produced a new dimension and a new opportunity. Increasingly in the European Parliament Irish matters are being discussed. They are being discussed mostly in a negative way but these discussions could be turned to the advantage of all communities in Ireland in future.
Thirdly, I see no evidence that the polarisation of the communities will lessen; rather the reverse. It is obvious that the majority of the minority community cannot identify with the present Government of the Province and as long as that continues the terrorist base remains. Likewise, the Protestant community, fearful and disillusioned as it is, is turning more and more to extreme politicians. The recent local elections and the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election prove that only too well.
Finally, there is no doubt that the present situation in Ulster is damaging to the United Kingdom's position abroad. Infuriating and unfair though it is, it is no good saying that the information on which America, France and other countries are basing their opinions is wrong. The fact is that we have taken a pounding overseas over the past few months. I am prepared to put up with that if I can see that there will be discernible progress in future, but I do not see that occurring.
It may be shorthand to say that the minority community wishes to be governed from Dublin and the majority community from Westminster, but it is true. Dublin has made it clear that it sees no progress being made through the coercion of the majority. The remarks that have been made from the Opposition Benches and from my hon. Friends have supported that view.
Dublin could not view with equanimity the prospect of 1 million disillusioned and discontented subjects within its boundaries. The most radical solution to come out of Dublin has been some form of federalism. Likewise the Protestant majority says that we have given a commitment that there will be no change in the constitution without the consent of the majority of the people of Ulster.
The results of a recent poll that appeared in The Sunday Times revealed that the majority appears to realise now that change there must be and that such change must involve some form of powersharing or partnership with the minority community. The Sunday Times poll and the other soundings of opinion suggest that while the majority is happy with the status quo, there is a sizeable proportion of the minority that cannot identify with the present Government of the Province.
The key question, which seems to have been missed in the debate, is how we create a Government in the Province with which both sides of the divide can identify. I am told—I do not know whether this is true—that the minority community would accept a devolved Government provided that the safeguards for their interests were sufficient. I do not believe that those safeguards can come from a British Government. I do not see why we should not consider the suggestion that the Republic of Ireland could be brought in as a guarantor of the position of the minority in a new constitution. In other words, the action of that devolved Administration, whether of legislation or administration, would be subject to the veto of one or other of the sovereign Powers in these islands.
I am speaking in general terms and I am unable to develop my argument in the short time that is available to

me. Obviously, detailed proposals will be necessary for sensitive areas such as housing. In the past such an idea has always been treated contemptuously. It has been described as a constitutional monstrosity and in a sense it is. However, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, we are in a unique situation and unique remedies are required.
For 60 years the majority community in Northern Ireland has had it in its gift to offer the partnership that I am describing to the minority, but it has not done so. When some of their leaders, such as Lord O'Neill, have tried to do so, they were rejected. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will seriously consider going not step by step but in a much more radical way to see whether we can break the deadlock that has been with us for far too long.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Time and necessity restrict me in my remarks. It should be put on record that this is a unique debate. There has been a unique development in the shape of the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
The reception given to the Secretary of State's proposals by the Unionist speakers for Northern Ireland showed no optimism. They have rejected out of hand any proposition to set up a council in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, South, (Mr. Bradford) said that they did so on the ground that Ulster should be treated like any other part of the United Kingdom. Ulster is unlike any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: So is Wales.

Mr. Fitt: The difference between Wales, Ulster and Northern Ireland is that since 1922—next year will be the sixtieth anniversary—Northern Ireland has been governed to a large extent by the special powers legislation, for 50 years under Unionism and for 10 years under the aegis of this House. Neither Wales nor Scotland has had special powers legislation. In the essential field of law and order without which no Government can claim to be running a country in the interests of all those people, they had to resort to the special powers legislation. A Government which had to do that and a country which had to be governed by such legislation are unique not only within the confines of the United Kingdom but on this side of the Iron Curtain in Western Europe. That is why the debate is unique.
We are debating two pieces of emergency legislation—the emergency legislation in connection with the special powers legislation which is 60 years old and the emergency legislation in regard to the constitution of Northern Ireland, which was made in 1974. I have opposed on all occasions and will oppose tonight the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, particularly in view of the Government's rejection of the reasonable requests which has been made for a review of the Act.
It is recognised that this Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act are draconian legislation. That is agreed and everyone accepts it. It is of the utmost necessity that we keep reviewing such legislation at every opportunity to make sure that its draconian aspects are not kept in being for one second longer than is necessary. Even at this stage, the Government should not take the rigid attitudes which they have taken and say that they will not set up a review.
This legislation, particularly in relation to the prisons in Northern Ireland and the Government's attitude to the hunger strikers, is not Conservative Government policy. That policy was advocated by Lord Gardiner and the special category status was abolished by the former Home Secretary. Therefore, there is much unanimity in this case.
I do not like the Diplock courts. I do not like no-jury courts. I do not like that type of legislation. One thing which I shall say in favour of the Diplock courts is that, unlike the IRA courts, they have not yet sentenced anyone to death. Did those courts have a jury or a judge? What evidence was given for the defence or the prosecution? Only last week one of my constituents was shot through the head and his body was dumped in a refuse chute in the Divis flats in Belfast. Was there a court, was there a jury, and what was the defence and prosecution? At least the Diplock courts have not done that. What charge was levelled at the innocent girl taking the census in Derry? Who tried her? Why was she sentenced to death? Whatever may be said about the Diplock courts, the IRA courts are far more brutal. That should always be borne in mind.
Within a fortnight, another striker could die. The hunger strike has had a devasting impact on the whole community in Northern Ireland. Never have I seen such polarisation and alienation. The Secretary of State has a duty to comment. The IRA issued a statement yesterday, the Provisional Sinn Fein the day before and one of its supporters the day before that alleging that the hunger strikers were putting tremendous pressure on the Government to accede to their demands for political status.
The Irish Americans appear to support the IRA demands, anti it is interesting to note that Communist Russia does, too. The IRA is unique in being the first such organisation to have the unswerving support of the Kremlin and Irish Americans.
Various countries are allegedly applying pressure on the British Government to accede to the prisoners' demands for political status. France, Italy, Holland, Germany and most other European countries have experienced terrorism. I do not know what the people in those countries feel or what demonstrations there may have been, but has the Secretary of State had representations from the Governments of France, Italy, Germany, Belgium and Holland to concede political status for the prisoners? If he had, the violent organisations in those countries would also be able to demand political status. The sooner that it is stated in clear and unmistakable terms that there is no pressure, from elected Governments, even though there may be from, say, Irish Americans, the sooner will the people in Sinn Fein realise that the pressure that they hope for will not be forthcoming, and in the interests of sanity, humanity and compassion they will call the young men dying in the Maze off the hunger strike.
Those young men and their relatives must be suffering agonies untold, which we cannot understand. The organisations are using those young men as weapons, just as they use machine guns and Armalite rifles. They should not be allowed, asked or forced to die in the interests of people outside the prison. The Government should say in clear and unmistakable language that, if the IRA and its supporters persist, another four or five young men will die and nothing will be achieved apart from untold heartbreak for their relatives.
I fully support the recent statement of the Irish Catholic bishops. It was clear, unqualified and unambiguous. It is the clearest Church statement since His Holiness the Pope visited Ireland and Drogheda. The previous statements by the Catholic Church in Ireland were qualified and ambiguous. They were welcomed with open arms by the Provisional Sinn Fein and its supporters and rejected by me. I and others welcomed the recent statement, but it was rejected out of hand by the Provisional Sinn Fein. Words are potent in Northern Ireland and mean what they say, so the greatest credit must be given to the bishops for their unambiguous statement.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East will not take it amiss if I remind him of a speech that I made from the Benches opposite on 28 March 1979, when I could not go into the Lobby with the Government under his leadership because of my objections to their policy in Northern Ireland. I said then—and this can be found in Hansard—that the Labour Party in Opposition seems to be more realistic in its attitude to Ireland than are Labour Governments. It is not so long since the Labour Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend, were going out of their way to create more seats and to pander to Unionist Members. There is a great deal of cynicism among the minority in Northern Ireland because they see the Labour Party in Opposition as a different kettle of fish from a Labour Government in power. That will never be forgotten. A great deal of the present atmosphere and attitude among the Catholic population in Northern Ireland—people who are now engaging in marches and some kind of overt support for the IRA—has been conditioned by what they regarded as the Labour Party selling them out in favour of Unionism in 1978–79.
My right hon. Friend called for what he described as a broadly independent Ulster. I do not believe that that is possible. I appreciate that his motivation in suggesting it was brought about by frustration and fear for the future of Northern Ireland. We are all frightened when we look into the future—because we see no future. As one who lives in Belfast and will shortly be returning there, I must tell my right hon. Friend that in no circumstances will the Catholic population accept an independent Ulster, no matter how many Bills of Rights are put on to the statute book, for who would police the Bills of Rights? We would need the Army and the police. We have had the bitter experience of 52 years of Unionism. We know what the Unionists did when they had control of the judiciary and the police. There is absolutely no possibility that the Catholic population would in any way accept an independent Ulster.
The Sunday Times recently carried out a survey and reported quite clearly that a majority of the population would accept power sharing. I am the only Member of the House who was involved in the Sunningdale agreement. I say this for the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He did everything that he possibly could to try to bring about a new atmosphere in Northern Ireland, which was the only real hope for political progress that I have seen in my lifetime there. Unfortunately, it lasted only five months. It never had the chance to engage the confidence of the whole community. It was brought to an end by a combination of Unionist opposition and strikes and a continuation of the IRA bombing campaign. I must also say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, although he was not the Prime Minister then, that many people in


Northern Ireland believe that if the forces under the command of the British Government—it was a Labour Government, not a Conservative Government—had acted more swiftly at that time, Sunningdale would have been in existence still. That cannot be said with any degree of accuracy, but many people believe it.
I believe that Sunningdale was the most hopeful development and that we must get back to that by some means or other. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made a very constructive speech. He said that power sharing is the only answer to the problems of Northern Ireland in any immediate sense. If the Unionist Party persists in rejecting it, the House has the right under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 to take other measures.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that there was overwhelming rejection of Sunningdale by the electorate in February 1974. It was not all that overwhelming. The Unionists won 11 seats for 51 per cent. of the votes while the pro-Sunningdale candidate—myself—had one seat for 49 per cent. of the votes. The Unionist Party in Northern Ireland has never had less than nine out of the 12 seats. They have had 10, 11 and even 12 seats when people decided to show their opinion by abstaining. It may have been an overwhelming victory in the number of seats, but in the previous election the Unionists won 10 seats and there was no Sunningdale agreement to argue about then. In the election before that, the Unionist Party won 10 seats. Therefore, the 1974 election did not represent a great revulsion against Sunningdale.
An opportunity now faces the Government. I fully accept that they should set up the new council. The matter will have to be discussed in greater detail to see what it actually means, but the members of that council should be appointed.
If there were an election to any Northern Ireland Assembly, the major political parties would go to the electorate with different mandates. One would seek a unified Ireland, the other an integrated Ulster with Great Britain and the party led by the hon. member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would return to majority rule at Stormont. If the council were to be elected on those three conflicting mandates, how in the name of God could we expect it to reach agreement? There would be none. That is why members of the council must be appointed.
Even then, it will take men of courage to accept the appointments, because they will be regarded as traitors to whatever side they belong. If they accept the appointments, and given a period of three months, six months or a year, I believe that they will begin to have confidence in each other and that they will be able to do away with the suspicion that now exists. It may then be possible to hold elections, but not elections to an Assembly at Stormount.
I have known the new Taoiseach, Dr. Garret Fitzgerald, for a number of years. He has a feeling for the people of Northern Ireland. His relations come from Northern Ireland. In fact his immediate relations were not of my religion. That gives him something which other Taoiseachs did not possess—immediate access to the thinking, fears and suspicions that exist within the majority community.
There is now an opportunity for the Government to make progress. However, any talks that take place with the new Taoiseach must be more open than the previous talks. Such an air of mystery and secrecy surrounded the previous talks that many people in Northern Ireland felt that a deal had been done and that they had been sold out. It is of the utmost importance that such talks continue with urgency and good will. I know that the new Taoiseach will enter such talks with the hope that they will succeed in the interests of everyone in Ireland.
Not only should future talks be more open: they should be capable of discussion in this House, because it was the secrecy of the previous talks that led to the victory, both personal and political, of the hon. Member for Antrim, North.

Mr. Tom Pendry: This has been a wide-ranging and constructive debate. The depth of concern that has been expressed in every corner of the House shows that Northern Ireland has once more become the focus of intense political attention and concern.
When I consider the number of right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate, as well as those who have sought to catch the eye of the Chair, I cherish the hope that such interest will permeate other Northern Ireland debates. In our view, if direct rule is to exist it is essential that it should be seen to operate in an open manner. In addition, the legislation affecting the Province should be debated as widely as possible.
We tend to debate Northern Ireland late at night or in the wee hours of the morning. However, I cherish the hope that more hon. Members, with their interest in Northern Ireland well established as the result of this debate, will in future debate Northern Ireland's real problems with the rest of us.
I do not intend to cover the same ground as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). Many of his points have been echoed in other parts of the House. I shall deal with some of the questions raised in the debate. In particular, I shall reinforce my right hon. Friend's main argument for an independent and wide-ranging inquiry into the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
First, I shall refer to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Of course, we welcome his ideas in the continuing debate on Northern Ireland. Few of us could doubt that he made a major contribution. I hope that he will not be too surprised to learn that my right hon. Friend and I do not go all the way with him. We certainly agree with his interpretation of bipartisanship. Far more status has been given to it than it deserves, because there have always been fundamental differences of approach between the parties on Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East did less than justice to the achievements of his Administration in creating a climate for a just settlement in Northern Ireland. That point was picked up by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who paid a glowing tribute to my right hon. Friend and his Ministers. As for the question of independence for Northern Ireland, I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the Labour Party study group looked long and hard at that option, along with others, but concluded that it would be the least satisfactory of all the available options. Indeed, that point was taken


up by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The Mori poll in last week's edition of The Sunday Times gave some credibility to that view. It showed that almost 80 per cent. of those questioned in Northern Ireland—certainly far and away the majority of both sides of the community—suggested that that was a non-starter.
I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. He has a record second to none in both Government and Opposition for his work on Northern Ireland. During the past few months both he and his family have been subject to unwarranted criticism and harassment. All I can say of his critics is that their knowledge of Northern Ireland is as scanty as their behaviour is intolerable.
The debate has covered two main issues. It has covered the extension of direct rule for 12 months and the continuance for a further six months of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. This is the eighth summer that hon. Members have been asked to renew two unique and controversial pieces of legislation. All hon. Members will agree that never before has this joint renewal debate taken place in such a climate of political ferment and public interest.
The Opposition do not agree lightly to extend the direct rule extension order. We see it now—as we have done in the past—as an interim measure and as a necessary prerequisite to any lasting solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. It can never be the answer to the problem of conflicting nationalities that has rent the Province apart since its creation in 1921. The violence and terrorism in the last 12 months in particular have left a legacy of misery and distrust that will take many years to dispel.
When direct rule was frist introduced it was thought by many hon. Members—albeit optimistically—that some settlement could be worked out between the communities, with Westminster acting as some sort of arbiter between the parties. That optimism has proved naive. No one can accuse past Governments of not having tried to achieve a settlement in Northern Ireland. However, those efforts have always been strangled, one way or another, by the intolerance of the Province's politicians who have been unwilling to compromise or to shift away from the shibboleths and dogmas that have regrettably always held such sway in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the results of the recent local government elections in Northern Ireland lead me to the conclusion that political affiliations there are as polarised as ever. We seem to have come full circle since 1972.
The time is ripe to cast aside smart-sounding dogma and categorical solutions, which we hear so much from the impatient or the revolutionary or, as has already been said, from the "Johnnies-come-lately"—those people who have given five minutes' thought to the problems of Northern Ireland and who get so much prominence in the Press.

Dr. Maw hinney: How does the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) reconcile the apparent polarisation in the local elections to which he has just referred with The Sunday Times poll, which talked about majorities in both communities being in favour of an Assembly with guarantees for the Catholics? They seemed to be mutually exclusive.

Mr. Pendry: I used that poll because it has been used so many times in the debate. I always have some reserve

about polls. As I have been reminded, when powersharing collapsed, within a few days 75 per cent. of the Province voted for powersharing. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was giving that illustration only as a rough indicator. On 8 June the Mori poll showed that the people in Northern Ireland generally wanted the politicians in Westminister to act, whatever that meant. But they certainly felt that the House had to do something, and the Secretary of State has responded in some way.
The recent Mori poll published in the The Sunday Times on 8 June reflects such a desire on the part of the people of Northern Ireland. The House had to do something, and the Secretary of State responded in some way. Imaginative action is needed which will offer a chink of light in the prison of conflict. To that extent the Secretary of State has come up with something. I hope that he will take this point on board. I hope that he will not raise the expectations of people in Northern Ireland and in this country with what he has proposed today.
When the Secretary of State set off on his round of talks in the early part of this Government's administration we said that we thought that he had not done his homework and that, although we wished him well, we did not think that he would succeed. We do not wish to be negative. We understand that he will talk with us and with other interested parties, so we want to study his proposals closely. He is responding to a general will. That is the indication that one gets from polls in the absence of elections.
The Labour Party recognises the new desire of the people of Northern Ireland and of the country in general to end the political vacuum that has existed over recent years. The politics of the extreme always thrive when society is given little or no responsibility for its daily government and administration. A way must be found to return power to the people of Northern Ireland, where responsibility will be shared by both communities and recognition will be given to the different inheritances of the two communities.
Within a few months the Labour Party will have a policy on Northern Ireland that will be the product of between 18 months' and two years' hard work and consultation. As a good Opposition, we have stood back from the experiences of Government and used the benefit of our years in office in an attempt to provide an imaginative and fundamental option for the people of Northern Ireland. Despite differences of opinion on how best to achieve a settlement, it is clear that it is inevitable that direct rule from Westminster will have to continue, and it has to be spelt out that we recognise that direct rule has to continue until there is agreement between political parties in Northern Ireland about the best form of government for the Province.
We recognise that there can be no coercion or forced withdrawal. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), who is not at present in his place, need not fear from a future Labour Government any bulldozing against the majority in Northern Ireland. Politics is the art of persuasion. We shall not be deflected from our search for a peaceful settlement by those who resort to violence and terrorism to undermine democratic processes. It will be the politics of persuasion and a question of consent. That has to be stated time and again for the benefit of those who may attempt to misinterpret what we say.
For the time being, direct rule must remain. While we have such a system of governing Northern Ireland. it must


be undertaken in the most responsible and sensitive manner. I must depart at this stage from what has been loosely called a bipartisan approach. The present Government have a pretty sorry record. I suppose that the Secretary of State, although I do not like to have to say so, must hold responsibility for a great deal of it, as custodian of the Northern Ireland interest in the Cabinet.
On the social and economic front, the policies of the Government compare very poorly with Labour's record. I am sure that, in the main, hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies will bear testimony to the fact. It is not a party political point.
I accept the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that one does not wish to magnify the differences. However, one cannot help spelling out the differences in this important area. That is what I intend to do. Unemployment in the Province has almost doubled in the past two years, to the point at which Northern Ireland has the highest number of unemployed people of any region. It has the highest level of infant mortality. It has the highest level of poverty. Almost one-third of the people are on the poverty line. Some of its housing conditions are the worst in Europe. One could continue with the catalogue.
All the achievements of the last Administration in keeping levels of unemployment stable—

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman makes a loose statement about housing conditions being the worst in Europe. I do not believe his statement to be true.

Mr. Pendry: I heard the hon. Gentleman say this in Committee. I said that conditions were amongst the worst in Europe. It is possible that conditions in Italy just about beat them. That is not a fact of which one can be proud. The previous Government were making tremendous inroads into these areas. All the achievements of the last Administration in keeping levels of unemployment stable, reducing the level of unfit houses and attracting new industry, have been squandered by the Government for the sake of an unproven economic theory.
Our successes in civil and individual liberties have also been undermined. The Government have not followed in our footsteps. There appears to be no continuing review to ensure that the agencies set up in the early and mid-1970s are still fulfilling their proper function. The Equal Opportunities Commission is being starved of funds. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights is effectively ignored by the Government. Much of the groundwork of the previous Government in creating a framework to protect the rights of the minority and, indeed, the majority community have been left to stagnate.
While in Government we were concerned to take initiatives to reform social laws and to protect human rights. I shall briefly remind the House of some of them. In 1976 the Fair Employment Agency was set up. In the same year there was sex discriminaion legislation and th Equal Opportunities Commission was set up. In 1977 the Police Complaints Board was established. In 1978 reforms of rape and divorce law brought the situation into line with that in England and Wales. In the same year there was reform of the Emergency Provisions Act, following the recommendations of the Gardiner Committee set up soon after we came to office.
We also ended detention without trial and undertook a thorough review of security policy with a view to returning to normal policing practices. By the time we left office in the spring of 1979 the number of troops in Northern Ireland had been reduced by almost one-third. The Government have followed that example with a phased withdrawal of troops from the streets of Northern Ireland in a sensible manner.
We ensured that direct rule was of positive benefit to the people of Northern Ireland by introducing legislation that would probably have been discounted by any majority regime in Stormont. In addition, we realised that there was a direct correlation between the level of economic activity and the incidence of violence. It was no stroke of luck that the statistics of violent activity were at their lowest during those years when Labour's special economic strategy for Northern Ireland was approaching success. We have heard about 1980, and I accept what was said, but the fact is that over that period unemployment was certainly at its lowest.
In that regard, I ask the Secretary of State to take careful note of what the Chief Constable of the RUC said in his report in 1980:
Adverse economic factors, while outside the control of the police, are none the less from a police standpoint not conducive to good order, and by the end of the year the effects of the recession were becoming evident in an increasing number of crimes committed for gain in areas of growing unemployment.
We can see what happens when direct rule is not properly operated and wider considerations take precedence over the special needs of Northern Ireland.
Our message to the Government is clear: "We are in favour of direct rule, but we want you to do far better on the economic front." It is in the tradition that we have established in Northern Ireland of seeking to protect human rights wherever possible, that we have tabled our amendment. I share the amazement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield at the Government's steadfast refusal to implement a review of the workings of the emergency provisions Act, but I noted in what the Secretary of State said a possible hope that the Minister of State, who has been listening carefully to the debate, will be influenced by our case. We hope so, because our amendment is neither a radical nor a soft proposal. A review would not detract in any way from our fight against terrorism.
In many ways a review could pull the carpet from under the feet of those who try to justify their terrorist and other actions by claiming that they have not been allowed access to the due processes of common law. We are more concerned to have a review to ensure that the basic civil liberties of the large number of law-abiding citizens are not eroded. Wherever emergency powers of such magnitude are applied it is necessary for Parliament to be kept fully informed of the situation that made those powers essential in the first place.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of what the hon. Gentleman says about civil liberties, will he commit the Labour Party to the introduction of a Bill of Rights?

Mr. Pendry: I cannot possibly commit the Labour Party to anything. It is not that kind of party. We shall discuss in the course of our democratic process what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and others have said. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the results of that democratic process in October.
There is a substantial and growing body of opinion in favour of the kind of review that we suggest. Many


speakers have referred to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Peace People and the jointly sponsored conference on the administration of justice, which has just been held in Belfast. All these have called for an immediate, independent review of the emergency powers. The Government would be unwise to ignore that. It would be to fly in the face of what they are trying to do in other areas.
In mid-1974 the Labour Government instituted an inquiry by Lord Gardiner into the workings of the Act. That was only 18 months after the emergency provisions became law. Even after such a short time Lord Gardiner found plenty of scope for change, and we took most of his recommendations on board when we amended the Act in 1978. It is now time for another inquiry to be set up. Lord Gardiner said:
The continued existence of emergency powers should be limited both in scope and in duration.
We recommend the Government to set up that review as early as possible, so that the areas of disquiet and grievance, which are widely voiced, can be dealt with properly and fairly.
We do not wish to pre-empt either the remit or the work of such an inquiry, but plenty of areas are in need of independent assessment. Hon. Members have referred to many of them, and I shall not describe them at length. There is no doubt that certain offences should be examined closely. We want to know whether the power of arrest and detention in the Act are still necessary. Where such powers are a constant irritant to certain sections of the community in Northern Ireland, the unquestionable duty of the Government is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fight against terrorism cannot be carried out without such powers. The Government should exercise their mind on that.
Another cause of controversy is section 2(2) of the Act, which relates to bail. It puts upon the accused the duty of satisfying the court that he should be granted bail. Further, applications for bail by those charged with scheduled offences are dealt with only in the High Court in Northern Ireland. That is a significant departure from the normal processes of law in the rest of the United Kingdom. The House should be able to judge, after an inquiry, whether that departure is still necessary.
I share the disquiet of many hon. Members about the operation of one-judge and no-jury courts. Hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to them. We should examine that practice to see whether it should become a permanent feature in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. A number of suggestions for changing the system have been made. They should be given the deepest thought.
The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) intervened in the Secretary of State's speech. He had a good point when he questioned whether there were enough judges and whether judges from the rest of the United Kingdom should be brought into Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with that.
I have a great admiration for judges, especially in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State spoke of the tremendous problems that they have. It is important to examine the effects of case-hardening in Northern Ireland. We cannot ignore the clear evidence that the number of acquittals has declined rapidly in recent years. That means either that fewer innocent people are being brought before

the courts or that more are being unjustly convicted. On that issue alone the House would benefit from a fresh look at the administration of justice.
I do not have time to go over some of the other matters that are worthy of review. The Minister of State has a clear duty to explain in clear terms—since the Secretary of State purposely did not because he was leaving the matter open—why the Government are refusing our legitimate request. A number of Conservative Members will want to be convinced. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked the Minister to convince him on a certain point. If the Government still refuse our request I shall call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends, and others who feel that our case is made out, to join us in the Division Lobby.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): A number of speeches have been made in today's debate that will have wonderfully concentrated the minds of many people on both sides of the Chamber and outside the House. The most notable example was the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Prime Minister, about whose speech I hope to make a few remarks later. I hope that he will not think it disrespectful if I start with an area of the debate that concentrates my mind wonderfully. I refer to the Opposition amendment and the duty that I have to try to persuade the House to avoid a vote, or, at least to vote for the Government's motion.
Our motion seeks approval for the renewal of the two Acts, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The Opposition amendment seeks to eliminate the approval that we seek for that and to substitute for it an agreement that it is time for a wide-ranging inquiry into the workings of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
I find myself in a paradoxical position when considering the terms of the amendment because these six-monthly statutory renewal debates represent, and should be regarded as representing, a welcome inquiry into the workings of the Act. As the debate has made clear, speeches by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have shown our local mini-inquiry to be thoroughly penetrating and comprehensive. We can only welcome the sort of probing discussion, examination and questioning that we have had in today's renewal debate. We had a similar debate six months ago and no doubt there will be another in six months time. This sort of regular parliamentary inquiry into the workings of an Act is not confined to today. It goes on all the time, for example in correspondence between Members and Ministers, in parliamentary questions and in the continuous surveillance which is carried out by the functioning of the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights which publishes its findings. Taken together, those avenues of examination and inquiry lead to considerable areas of factual knowledge and understanding about the workings of the Act, which is what the amendment asks for.
The bail provisions of section 2 of the Act, to which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) specifically referred, have been subject to considerable criticism by the Standing advisory committee and, more formally, by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) when he led the Opposition on Northern Ireland matters. Whatever we may think of the merits of those provisions


there is no difficulty in establishing how they are working. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the year ended 31 March 1980, 45 per cent. of bail applications for scheduled offences were successful. We can furnish the figures to show how many suspects accused of serious terrorist offences have absconded from bail. There is no problem in discovering how the Act is working.
To take another example, section 7 of the emergency provisions legislation covers trial without jury, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That is controversial. I do not dispute that. The merits of that provision never fail to get a proper examination, scrutiny and discussion when we debate renewal. The workings of the non-jury provision are factual rather than controversial. The facts show that in 1979 pleas of guilty were made in 79 per cent. of the cases that came before the non-jury courts. Because the accused pleaded guilty, in those cases there would have been no jury under the normal system.
The number of guilty pleas in ordinary cases, in ordinary jury courts, is even higher than the 79 per cent. of guilty pleas in non-jury courts. There is nothing out of the ordinary about the substantial proportion of guilty pleas. We know the facts about the workings of the Act.
Let us consider the controversial powers of arrest, detention and search provided in section 11. The merits of the powers for which we seek renewal may be debatable—indeed, they have been extensively debated today. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred to the hazards of the arrest provisions in the normal working of the rule of law. But the workings of those provisions, into which the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) wants an inquiry, are not difficult to establish. They can be specified in reply to questions. For example, I answered a parliamentary question last month which showed that under section 12 of the parallel Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976—which provides for arrest and detention without charges for 48 hours, and for an authorised extension of that period for up to five days—1,048 people were arrested in Northern Ireland to the end of March 1981, of whom 486 were charged with offences.
We know, and can inform the House at any time, about the workings of the Act into which the right hon. Gentleman seeks an inquiry. There is no problem in establishing the facts. I could give many other examples of how the Act is working—facts about the intervals between arrest and trial, about finds of firearms and explosives under the power of search provisions and about the wearing of hoods in public under section 26. I shall not weary the House with all the facts that I could adduce, save for referring to one overriding fact. The combination of the availability of information and the use to which that information can be put, and is put, in debates such as today's makes it clear, to me at any rate, that the workings of the Act are clearly known and knowable through our regular parliamentary processes.
That is the background against which I approach, and against which I wish the House to apprach, the Opposition amendment, which calls for
a wide-ranging inquiry into the workings
of the Act. Such an inquiry is unnecessary—it is positively udesirable in present circumstances. My approach is neither pedantic nor disingenuous in referring to the facts.

I do not oppose inquiries into some of the specific areas covered by different sections of the Act. There have been such inquiries in the past, and on the whole they have done some good. Lord Gardiner's inquiry in 1975 into aspects of prison practice is a case in point. The right hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde both referred to that. Lord Diplock's committee of inquiry resulted in sections of the emergency provisions Act bearing on the court and mode of trial for scheduled offences. There was the Bennett inquiry into police interrogation methods for terrorist offences.
The point about all the inquiries was that they sprang from evident and open disturbing facts about particular situations. It was not the workings of the legal, social or judicial systems which were shrouded in mystery. On the contrary, the workings were clearly seen. The inquiries sought remedies for specific abuses.
What I dislike about at least one way of interpreting the Opposition's proposal—and I fear that the idea would gain wider credence outside the House—is that the Opposition are so uneasy about the possibility of some hidden, nameless or undiscovered scandal lurking beneath every aspect of the emergency provisions Act that they believe that a broad-brush, generalised, wide-ranging inquiry—an omnibus Bennett-Gardiner-Diplock inquiry—is necessary. I do not believe it to be either necessary or justifiable.
Another way of interpreting the Opposition's amendment is to regard it as less concerned with the Act and its workings and more concerned with the general, social and political environment in which it is operating. That is a rather different matter. Viewed in that way, the proposal for an inquiry would have had more merit. A strong case could be made for a general inquiry into the Act as and when there is a wholly changed and dramatically improved security situation. Public confidence in the dismantling of the Act, when the time to do so arrives, may properly demand nothing less than the wide-ranging general inquiry for which the Opposition have applied. Alas, the current security situation does not justify any such inquiry.

Mr. Pendry: As so many organisations are showing their concern and are voicing it, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that their concern should be taken on board by the Government? If they can justify their actions through an inquiry, that is all to the good. There is a great deal of disquiet inside and outside Northern Ireland. That is what my right hon. and hon. Friends have been saying.

Mr. Alison: It does not behove the Opposition to echo generalised and nameless disquiet when they have access to factual information, which I am suggesting is readily available. In the present climate, a generalised inquiry into whether the environment is now better for examining the workings of the Act could only portend in the minds and emotions of many the possibility of an untimely relaxation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that in the past two months, following the first hunger strike death, terrorist incidents and activity have sharply reversed the recent downward trend. In the first four months of 1981 24 people died as a result of terrorist violence. Over the past two months 27 people have lost their lives. In six months the rate of loss of life through terrorist incidents has doubled as a result of the hunger strikes. We are now grappling with more violence, more


and more novel forms of terrorist weapons and missiles—for example, acid as well as petrol bombs and blast bombs—more intimidation as a result of massive turn-outs at funerals and more illegal acts than when we considered the Act about six months ago. I earnestly advise the House not to be diverted by the Opposition's signpost towards a wide-ranging general inquiry. I fear that in the present circumstances that will lead only to a blind alley.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield argued that an inquiry might help in the context of the Maze dispute. With respect, I do not believe that it would. The activities that have put the men into the Maze as convicted criminals are murder and intimidation, including the intimidation of jurymen and possibly the judicial system. It is that sort of weapon or approach that Diplock manifestly found to be good cause for setting up what we now commonly call the Diplock courts.
I do not think that an inquiry could overturn the reality that Diplock found to be fundamental to his proposals and recommendations. An inquiry could throw up doubts about the present operation of the Diplock courts. That would not help us remotely in the context of the Maze hunger strike and the men convicted under Diplock proceedings for the very crimes that made the Diplock courts and other courts of that sort inescapable and necessary.
I accept the sincerity of the Opposition in pressing the idea of an inquiry. I accept that they are concerned that the Act should not be allowed to take on the characteristic of permanence.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, other ministerial colleagues and I have often expressed that same concern. We are aware of the dangers of allowing the Act to become so familiar a piece of furniture that those responsible for law and order in Northern Ireland find it too difficult ever to turn it out. It becomes a familiar piece of the furniture in the room. We shall not allow ourselves to slip into that attitude of inertia and immobilism.
I do not want to say that an independent review could not in any circumstances be a useful way of proceeding. That is a response that, I hope, is adequate, to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I can imagine conditions in which the Government might find it helpful to receive such guidance. A review might play a helpful role in dealing with the inertia to which I alluded earlier. As my right hon. Friend has noted, we have already put a great deal of work into considering the progressive phases by which the powers might theoretically be reduced at the right time—and not only theoretically. The continuing internal review of all the emergency provisions legislation a year ago resulted in a dismantling of the detention provisions, for example. I now respond to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davidson) that I should confirm that we are continuing such an internal study as a necessity. We are doing so and we are looking for the right time to make the change. We are keeping an open mind on that.
I feel strongly that it would be misguided for the Government to ask an idependent body to suggest how a path might be laid out for dismantling the Act when the Government cannot see their way to setting out on that path. In the present circumstances, and particularly in the sensitive conditions prevailing today, a review to consider the workings of the Act could be taken only to suggest that

the Government have begun to have doubts on whether major parts of the Act were working properly. That would be undesirable and far from true.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has my hon. Friend considered the Great Britain dimension in these matters and is he aware that there is a substantial body of opinion in Great Britain that feels that it might be to the advantage of the criminal justice system if certain cases were heard by one judge, or perhaps three judges, in the absence of juries and that for those reasons, it would be advisable to march hand in hand with practice in this country, or at least take account of it?

Mr. Alison: The controversies with which I am surrounded in the context in which I have responsibility in Northern Ireland are sufficiently great to make it desirable that I should avoid any comment on what might be appropriate in Great Britain.

Mr. Concannon: I am finding this answer disappointing. The Opposition are not asking for the dismantling of the Act. We put forward the amendment to be as helpful as possible, but I am finding the attitude in the reply disappointing. We are asking for a review of the Act simply because, as the Secretary of State and others have said, no one can equate the terrorist situation today with what it was in 1973 or 1975. Things have moved on. Surely we should look at the Act to see whether it is working in the way in which we originally intended.

Mr. Alison: Alas, things have moved on. They have moved into a sharply tumultuous phase in the Province. We hope that that phase will be short-lived, but there is the prospect of eight possible further deaths. The first four deaths led to a sharp upward movement in the level of terrorist violence, particularly murders. At the moment an inquiry could only make some people fear that we would relax the provisions that were protecting them or that we would upset things, when people's anxieties are beginning to increase. It is over the moment that the inquiry is being sought that we are finding the greatest difficulty in acceding to the right hon. Member's approach.
I turn now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, who speaks from a wealth of experience—direct experience of Northern Ireland while he was Home Secretary and Prime Minister and, additionally, from having held other relevant high offices as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. He offered us a weighty analysis of the policies of successive Governments. He rightly described the key features of those policies as being to repress the IRA and other terrorism with firmness and resolution, to govern Northern Ireland fairly, humanely and effectively through direct rule and to seek the political development in Northern Ireland necessary for the reconciliation of its divided community. My right hon. Friend has today given the House an account of the Government's stewardship in those respects and our proposals for the future.
The right hon. Gentleman asked where, in the long term, the activity was taking us. He asked what winning meant. The House is indebted to him for raising those fundamental matters in the way that he has and for being specific and clear in his proposals for the way ahead. His speech is something to be pondered; it is not for instant reaction. I shall not fall into the trap of giving an instant


and detailed reaction. As he recognises, his detailed proposals deal with a number of problems and difficulties that require mature thought.
However, three points are worth making. First, the right hon. gentleman states that his object is to restart a political discussion that gets away from sloganising. We should all endorse his warning against slogans. However, the right hon. Gentleman says that there are no easy solutions, and the slogan "Troops Out" offers no way ahead. Nor is there profit in easy talk about ending the guarantee, as though that statutory formula was an obstacle to progress that could otherwise be easily made and not a formal recognition that the outcome in Northern Ireland cannot be settled above the heads of the majority of its people, as is the reality, and that fact is recognised by all who think responsibly about the problem in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is right to conclude that the problems of Northern Ireland cannot be solved by the British Government alone. As the Government have repeatedly said, part of the will to solve them must come from the people of Northern Ireland. The leaders of both parts of the community there must ask themselves—and, more important, must ask one another—what the projections of present positions and attitudes into the future is likely to bring in terms of peace and stability. Is there some better way than that of living together in peace and amity, which is what we all seek?
Finally, my initial reaction to the right hon. Gentleman's idea of fresh discussions at Westminster is that it has an attraction. In an important sense, today's debate is itself such a beginning. My right hon. Friend has promised further debate at a later stage, when our proposals for a Northern Ireland Council have been worked up into a more detailed form. However, I fancy that the right hon. Gentleman means something rather more than that. The Government will certainly think seriously and with an open mind about what he said and what was said following his speech.

Mr. Dunlop: When the Secretary of State said that elected members would be on the so-called advisory council, did he mean that hon. Members would be ex-officio members if and when the council is set up?

Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend did not say that they would be ex-officio members. Indeed, he was at some pains—as was right—not to be too specific about the methods of nomination or appointment. It is precisely in that area that we wish to have talks with, among others, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop).
As is appropriate, following the lead-in to discussions of this kind given by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I conclude with a word about the political proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend. We have, of course, listened carefully to what has been said about the proposals in the debate so far. The praise has been pretty faint, but in Northern Ireland that is far from being damned. I do not think that anybody has actually anathematised—that is the appropriate form of denunciation in the Province—my right hon. Friend's proposals. Even the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), although he made some fairly swingeing criticisms, was

shrewd enough to perceive that he himself might either be consulted about membership or even come to enjoy membership and did not reject the proposals out of hand.
Many hon. Members clearly accept that our proposal for a representative Northern Ireland Council is a sensible and positive response to political conditions in the Province. The inability of the local parties to agree on how power should be exercised places a substantial constraint on the action that any Government can take. To ignore that is to fly in the face of reality. I welcome the growing understanding in the House of the Northern Ireland situation and the political realism shown by many hon. Members in the debate.
We shall not ignore those who have been critical or sceptical of our proposals. We shall consider carefully what they have said. I had the impression, however, that many of our critics today were moved not by a fundamental disagreement with us but more by disappointment. They did not so much feel that the establishment of a representative council was wrong in itself—rather, they were disappointed that we had not instead pursued their own pet schemes or that something more ambitious had not been feasible.
I turn to the immediate future. Against the background of a large number of ideas and proposals put forward for a much longer time perspective, be it independence or unification, my right hon. Friend has put forward practical proposals for the immediate future. I believe that that is the proper duty of Government in this context. My right hon. Friend has outlined his proposal for a representative council to re-establish the political forum that Northern Ireland has lacked for so long. We hope that discussion can take place with the parties during the summer about the details of the scheme and that we may come back to the House in the autumn with fully spelt out proposals. Certainly we accept that the House should have a further opportunity to debate the Government's policy and to give its approval to it.
I touch upon a point raised in an earlier intervention by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He feared that approval for a motion for the continuance of either Act might itself entail a wholesale, carte blanche approval of my right hon. Friend's proposal for a political advisory committee. That, of course, does not follow. We have given far too few specific details of what is entailed for such broad or generalised approval to be implied by any vote tonight or by the Lobby into which any hon. or right hon. Member goes. We have merely said that we intend to proceed in this direction and that against the background of that intention, declaration and determination we intend to take into account the wisdom and the counsel of those in the House and outside who have wide experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland and are committed to its future. It is against that background that we shall determine the details.
Questions have been raised tonight about whether there could ever be an occasion on which there might be a majority or non-majority based on the sectarian divisions in a vote on the type of matter on which the council would advise. Questions have been raised as to whether we should base the new set-up on the electoral results of the European Parliament or of the last local government elections. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Down, North, I should say that it was the latter that we had in mind. A wide range of other detailed points will be discussed.
We believe that the principle of a nominated parliament, perhaps taking the place of or leading up to an elected parliament, is acceptable and is the right and proper way to proceed for the future.

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 213, Noes 279.

Division No. 243]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey)
George, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ginsburg, David


Beith, A. J.
Golding, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Hardy, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Haynes, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, Ian
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cant, R. B.
Homewood, William


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Huckfield, Les


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Conlan. Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cook, Robin F.
Janner, Hon Greville


Cowans, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
John, Brynmor


Craigen, J. M.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leighton, Ronald


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davis, T. (B ham, Stechf'd)
Litherland, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dempsey. James
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dobson, Frank
McElhone, Frank


Dormand, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Dubs, Alfred
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Duffy, A. E. P.
McTaggart, Robert


Dunn, James A.
McWilliam, John


Dunnett, Jack
Magee, Bryan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marks, Kenneth


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


English, Michael
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ewing, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Field, Frank
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Fitt, Gerard
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ford, Ben
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Forrester, John
Newens, Stanley




NOES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Hon Adam


Aitken, Jonathan
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Churchill, W. S.


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Corrie, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Costain, Sir Albert


Banks, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Bendall, Vivian
Critchley, Julian


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Crouch, David


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Best, Keith
Dorrell, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Dover, Denshore


Blackburn, John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Blaker, Peter
Dunlop, John


Body, Richard
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Andrew
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bradford, Rev R.
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bright, Graham
Eggar, Tim


Brinton, Tim
Elliott, Sir William


Brittan, Leon
Eyre, Reginald


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brotherton, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Browne, John (Winchester)
Farr, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fell, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buck, Antony
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fookes, Miss Janet

Ogden, Eric
Stallard, A. W.


O'Halloran, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Neill, Martin
Stoddart, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Park, George
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Parker, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Penhaligon, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tilley, John


Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Torney, Tom


Race, Reg
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Radice, Giles
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Richardson, Jo
Watkins, David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Welsh, Michael


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Robertson, George
Whitehead, Phillip


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Whitlock, William


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ryman, John
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Sever, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winnick, David


Short, Mrs Renée
Woodall, Alec


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Sheila


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. George Morton.

Forman, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Marcus
Mayhew, Patrick


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mellor, David


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Goodhart, Philip
Moate, Roger


Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James


Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Hector


Gorst, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Gow, Ian
Moore, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morgan, Geraint


Gray, Hamish
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Greenway, Harry
Mudd, David


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Neale, Gerrard


Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard


Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A.
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hannam, John
Osborn, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hastings, Stephen
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Parris, Matthew


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hayhoe, Barney
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heddle, John
Pawsey, James


Henderson, Barry
Percival, Sir Ian


Hicks, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hooson, Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Raison, Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James A.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kimball, Marcus
Rifkind, Malcolm


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Knox, David
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Lang, Ian
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Richard


Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Nicholas
Silvester, Fred


McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Speller, Tony


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Spence, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sproat, Iain


McQuarrie, Albert
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, John


Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Martin


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

Stokes, John
Ward, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Peter
Watson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Tebbit, Norman
Wells, Bowen


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Thompson, Donald
Whitney, Raymond


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wickenden, Keith


Thornton, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Trippier, David
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waddington, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waldegrave, Hon William



Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, B. (Perth)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Wall, Patrick
Mr. John Cope.


Waller, Gary

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 45.

Division No. 244]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Cope, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Corrie, John


Alexander, Richard
Costain, Sir Albert


Alison, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Crouch, David


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom
Dover, Denshore


Aspinwall, Jack
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Dunlop, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Beith, A. J.
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bendall, Vivian
Eggar, Tim


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Elliott, Sir William


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Best, Keith
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bevan, David Gilroy
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Biggs-Davison, John
Farr, John


Blackburn, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blaker, Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Body, Richard
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Andrew
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bradford, Rev R.
Fox, Marcus


Bright, Graham
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Brinton, Tim
Fry, Peter


Brittan, Leon
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Brotherton, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodhart, Philip


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Goodhew, Victor


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodlad, Alastair


Buck, Antony
Gorst, John


Budgen, Nick
Gow, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burden, Sir Frederick
Gray, Hamish


Butler, Hon Adam
Greenway, Harry


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Chapman, Sydney
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Churchill, W. S.
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hannam, John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Haselhurst, Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hastings, Stephen




NOES


Alton, David
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Maxton, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Meacher, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Newens, Stanley


Carmichael, Neil
Pavitt, Laurie


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cryer, Bob
Race, Reg


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Richardson, Jo


Dixon, Donald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dobson, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Dubs, Alfred
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fitt, Gerard
Thomas, Jeffrey (Aberfillery)


Flannery, Martin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Welsh, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Wigley, Dafydd


Heffer, Eric S.
Wright, Sheila


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Home Robertson, John



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours


Lamond, James
and Mr. Clive Soley.


Lyon, Alexander (York)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Hawksley, Warren
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Heddle, John
Murphy, Christopher


Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerrard


Hicks, Robert
Needham, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Neubert, Michael


Hooson, Tom
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Osborn, John


Hurd. Hon Douglas
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Parris, Matthew


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Patten, John (Oxford)


Kilfedder, James A.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Kimball, Marcus
Pawsey, James


King, Rt Hon Tom
Penhaligon, David


Knight, Mrs Jill
Percival, Sir Ian


Knox, David
Pollock, Alexander


Lang. Ian
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Latham, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lawrence, Ivan
Proctor, K. Harvey


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Raison, Timothy


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rathbone, Tim


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Loveridge, John
Renton, Tim


Luce, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Lyell, Nicholas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


MacGregor, John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


McQuarrie, Albert
Roper, John


Madel, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Major, John
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Marland, Paul
Rossi, Hugh


Marlow. Tony
Rost, Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Mather, Carol
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Mayhew, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mellor, David
Shepherd, Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Silvester, Fred


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Sims, Roger


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Speller, Tony


Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Molyneaux, James
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Hector
Sproat, Iain


Montgomery, Fergus
Squire, Robin


Moore, John
Stainton, Keith

Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Stanley, John
Waller, Gary


Steel, Rt Hon David
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Martin
Watson, John


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Wells, Bowen


Stokes, John
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Tapsell, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wickenden, Keith


Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Thompson, Donald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thornton, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wakeham, John
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Waldegrave, Hon William
and


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Walker, B. (Perth )

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves of the Government's proposal to continue the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for further periods.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time motion No. 3:
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

Mr. Atkins: I addressed the House for nearly 50 minutes earlier, when I referred to both the orders. I shall not say any more about them now, but if a debate arises and I am asked to reply I shall ask for leave to do so.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The subject of the debate is, as the Secretary of State has already observed, identical to that which has engaged the House throughout today's sitting. Indeed, it is one single debate extending from the commencement of business until one and a half hours after the motion which has just been put from the Chair, with only this difference—that the convenience of the House has been suited by taking the Division in the middle of the debate. That is so convenient to many hon. Members that if we had the advantage—which we do not—of a sessional committee on procedure the committee might well consider whether it would not be convenient to adopt this method more frequently so that hon. Members could have the Division at a reasonable hour—perhaps rather earlier than the conventional meaning of that term—and then those who were still interested in the topic could continue the debate until its natural limit.
The debate has been, and is, one which fully justifies the maximum avail of the time of the House, and I do not think that it meeds any apology if hon. Members, particularly hon. Members representing seats in Northern Ireland, take the opportunity to carry further the matters which have engaged the House already.
The debate today was not approached by hon. Members entirely without preparation. It is true that the Secretary of State had been keeping his cards close to his chest; his consultations always stopped short at the point at which any indication would be given of what the Secretary of State had in his mind. The speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was designed to be in the nature if not of a bombshell at any rate of a breath of fresh air. However, we were provided by the press—thanks no doubt in part to the activity of the Government's public relations officials—with a reasonable preview of three points of view which would be put forward in the debate. First, we had a preparatory initiation into what would be stated by the Secretary of State. Where the leak came from may or may not be a matter for subsequent investigation. Then the speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, which he already had in typescript at a fairly early hour yesterday, somehow managed to get into the hands of the press, so

that the shock which hon. Members listening to it might otherwise have sustained was somewhat softened and modified.
There was, however, a third contribution to the debate, of which we also had the benefit from the newspapers. Paradoxically, it was by an hon. Member who did not find it necessary to attend the debate at all. We were not merely told that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would not be present; we were told the reasons why he would not be present. They were reasons entirely consistent with the attitude which that hon. Member has constantly maintained towards the House and are significant for the real implications of his politics.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North has made no secret of his belief that the views of the House are unimportant where the future of Northern Ireland is concerned, of his contempt for the House, of his readiness to abuse the House both inside it and outside, and of his repudiation of any allegiance to the House.
The essence of the union of the United Kingdom is its Parliament. It is not possible to be a Unionist and to sustain the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, at the same time, to repudiate the authority of this House of Commons, for the two are one and the same thing. The emphasis and weight of the doings and utterances of the hon. Member for Antrim, North over the years have been a repudiation of the authority of the House—a repudiation which has not been limited to words but which has extended to deeds; the attempt, which came near to wrecking the economy of the Province four years ago, to stage a revolt to coerce the House in matters concerning Northern Ireland.
Curiously, this constituted a strange link between the absent contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North and the present contribution which most of us were fortunate enough to have the pleasure of hearing from the former Prime Minister. They are both in favour of "Go it alone". They are both opposed to the continued maintenance of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are both in favour of an independent Ulster.
It is true that the independent Ulster that is a gleam in the eye of the hon. Member for Antrim, North does not entirely resemble the independent Ulster that was adumbrated by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, but they have this important thing in common, that they look to a future which, in the common phrase, will be settled by the people of Northern Ireland for themselves. That phrase in itself is a repudiation of the union; for no part of the United Kingdom can itself settle its future except that its future will be part of the United Kingdom—that self-determination which the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) confirmed again, anything else notwithstanding, is firmly held to by the Labour Party—as it must be by that party's very nature.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East made a speech which was remarkable chiefly as coming from someone who had so recently been Prime Minister and who had for so long in positions of supreme responsibility been concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It was its unrealism which was its extraordinary quality. He opened his speech by advancing the proposition that somehow we must make an end of the apparently interminable vista of the fluctuating but continuing attack on that part of the United Kingdom by the Irish Republican Army. He posed the question—he posed it to himself, he posed it to the House—how are we to make an end of this?
How are we, not content with repression, with periods of exhaustion alternating with the continual recurrence of the threat of the IRA, to eliminate it entirely? He came to the extraordinary conclusion that the answer was an independent State of Northern Ireland.
How could the right hon. Gentleman, with all his knowledge, envisage—how could any person, who has the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland and of the history of Ireland, envisage—that an independent Ulster would not be the object of the even more violent and determined hostility of the IRA?
There would be actually an additional dimension—or, rather, there would be the development of a dimension that has been seen all too clearly already in the past year or so—namely, an international dimension such as has not been experienced previously, and on a scale that has not been experienced before. Those forces in different parts of the world which at present covertly support the IRA and are bringing pressure to bear upon the Government to do and say things inconsistent with the essence of a United Kingdom embodying the Province would have free rein. The whole issue would be thrown into the international arena. The analogy of Lebanon would not be far fetched as a description of what might be expected by an independent Ulster under attack from an IRA with hopes and prospects such as it has never enjoyed before. It was a fantastic injection into the debate of something wildly unreal. It was remarkable principally in that it could actually fall from the lips of a former Prime Minister.
The Secretary of State had his own little contribution to unveil to the House. He did not use the words used by the Minister of State. The Minister of State described the proposal as a "nominated Parliament". That was a useful lapsus linguae, if such it was, because the sheer impossibility, incompatibility, contradictory nature of the term "nominated Parliament"—I suppose there was a nominated Parliament of a sort for a year or two during the Commonwealth, but it is not a term one normally uses in the hearing of the House—was enough to put the House on its guard against the absurdity of what was being proposed. Of course, we were not given details—they had not been worked out. But we were invited, if not by our vote, to say broadly "What a jolly good idea!" and to wish it the best of luck.
As far as we can gather from the few signs vouchsafed by the Secretary of State, there would be a body of 50 people. They would be picked by a system not yet disclosed, or even worked out. The verb used was "nominated". They are to be nominated by the Secretary of State—

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Either the right hon. Gentleman was not listening or I did not make myself clear. I said that I would invite to serve on the council people nominated by the political parties from the elected sources that I described.

Mr. Powell: The elected sources that were described were the district councillors, the Members elected to the House and the Members elected to the European Assembly. A selection is to be made from among a fairly large body of people—I have not worked out the total pool from which they will be drawn, but it will run to several hundreds—upon a basis that will depend on any view on what the Secretary of State regards as the parties.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Quangos.

Mr. Powell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the notion of a quango is innocent and acceptable indeed compared with the monstrosity that I am inviting the House to consider. It has not done so yet because there has been no serious examination of the notion. We have barely had any details given to us. We are not to debate the issue for another six months. So we might take a few minutes now to consider what is before us.
I was saying, when I received assistance from the hon. Member for Bolsover, that from this electoral college, as it were, this pool of nominated persons, 50 persons will be selected upon unknown principles from undesignated parties—we are not short of political parties in the Province—by the Secretary of State.
The council is to be an advisory body. It is to advise the Secretary of State. He is to put questions to it on the various matters with which he has to deal and, after due debate, it will provide him with its considered advice, which may be either unanimous—I leave that to the imagination of the House—or arrived at by some process of voting—I cannot think that anything so simple as the ordinary majority system that we have in the House would be acceptable in so complex and novel a body—at any rate, advice with dissent will be forthcoming.
The council will also advise on legislation. It will give its opinions upon the proposals for legislation affecting Northern Ireland, presumably in the form of Bids and Orders in Council. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention whether it would be legislation by Act of Parliament for Northern Ireland or only legislation by Order in Council. Perhaps he had not thought of that point. He merely said "legislation". I shall be prepared to give way to him at any stage when he feels moved to give the House a little more elucidation of the extraordinary proposition that he has casually flung into the air in the course of today's debate. So, the council, this nominated body, this body drawn from persons elected to be members of district councils, from persons elected to be Members of this House, the legislature of the union, and from persons elected to be Members of the European Assembly, is to advise the Secretary of State upon legislation.
There is a third function. The council is also to be a constitutional convention. It will be able to consider the future government of Northern Ireland. It will be able to consider various ways in which that part of the United Kingdom might be governed, administered and legislated for. In this context, there will be access to the council—communications to and from it—from the Irish Republic. It was not accidental that the interest of the Irish Republic and its government in the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland was mentioned by the Secretary of State almost in the same breath.
The council, then, is to be all those things. It is to advise upon policy, upon legislation and upon the future constitutional arrangements for a part of the United Kingdom.
What will happen to its advice? I take the simplest example. Let us suppose that by a majority, or even unanimously, the advisory council says "We do not like this Order in Council. We do not want it." Will the Secretary of State nevertheless persist against the homegrown grass-roots expression of political opinion in the Province? Will he say "No, I shall take it to the Floor of the House of Commons and there I shall not only have the value of the Whips and my majority, but I might even get some support, as I usually do—and intelligent, helpful


and constructive support—from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituents"? Or will he say "I am sorry, but that is it. I have had it. The advisory council will not wear it?"
But what happens in opposite circumstances, when the advisory council says "This is a good egg. Excellent. We have considered your Order in Council, Secretary of State, and we commend it." What is the position of Members of the House then? It occurs to me—this may be some comfort to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that it may help to abbreviate some of the proceedings on Northern Ireland legislation. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say "The House will wish just to take note and formally to approve the order, but, of course, it has been considered by my advisory council in Northern Ireland, a thoroughly representative body, which I have selected in the manner I have explained from various collections of district councillors and others. They say that it is a good order; so how dare anyone get up in the House, so remote and alien from circumstances in Northern Ireland, and venture even to debate, let alone to criticise, it?"
How can hon. Members, who will eventually take responsibility to their constituents for that legislation one way or the other, presume, with their limited information and sources of advice, to do what we have done over the last seven years, namely, co-operate with the Government in the continual improvement of legislation, even under the stultifying procedure of Order in Council? A dilemma is created by the institution of such an advisory body. It is incompatible with the nature of the House. In no other context does any Minister dare to say to the House "I have taken political advice on the measures which I am about to lay before you." Of course, he takes advice from specialists and from various interested bodies—he hears and listens to them.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: Or from Central Office.

Mr. Powell: The Minister takes advice from all over, but he comes to the House as the one forum where all hon. Members have the equal right to participate in the legislative process.
There is no means of reconciling the representation of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the Kingdom in the House, a representation which, unless the Government at the last minute renege upon their undertakings—something which has not been unknown—will become a full representation as from the next Parliament, with the sort of set-up proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
It is an absurdity. It is an inherent absurdity and a manifest absurdity, but it is more and worse than that. It is a sinister absurdity.

Mr. Stallard: It must be a good idea.

Mr. Powell: It is certainly a good idea for somebody. I do not know whether the Secretary of State will regard this as a compliment, but he did not think of this for himself. I ask him to take that in the best possible sense. If it applies any balm after the criticisms of his notion which I have offered, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely welcome to it. But those from whom the idea comes well understand what the consequences of it would be.
They well understand that the constant conflict between Her Majesty's Government administering Northern

Ireland and an advisory body, which, sitting and debating, no doubt, in public or leaking in public, would have a vested interest in being opposed to the Government, in taking the most extreme point of view in polarising every possible issue, would create rising frustration and be an obstacle to the work of government. Thus the pressure would be increased to say: "This is no good. We cannot go on like this. We must have a directly elected assembly and a Government responsible to it." Then we should go once again round the course which we know so well and which one hon. Member after another in the debate has admitted is impracticable.
Nevertheless, there are those who still hope that it can be brought about, because it involves breaking the link between Northern Ireland and this House of Commons. The first virtue of the advisory institution from their point of view is that it does that. It essentially destroys the function of the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland. It raises once again the spectre of a provincial legislature and executive incompatible with belonging to the United Kingdom, as the House and the people of Wales and Scotland discovered when they respectively debated and voted upon devolution in the last Parliament. It opens out a new channel whereby the Republic can be involved in the constitutional evolution of Northern Ireland.
The key to all this is that it would be a body that is corruptible. It would be a body upon which people could get to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) quoted what was no jocular remark by a former Secretary of State when, discussing the possibility of giving more power to the existing local authorities in Northern Ireland, he said that the difficulty was that no excuse could be found for paying them more. When people set about destroying a province or a nation, they go about it in the way that is customary—almost historic—in Irish experience. They go about it by corruption. It is ultimately only through corruption that men can be brought to participate in forswearing their own inheritance.
This is something that has been long intended. It is true that it is in an attenuated form just now. I remember the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, telling me in October 1979 "You can take it from me that there will be an Assembly." "Oh, no," he added, "I did not get that as a leak from the Cabinet. The thing has not gone to the Cabinet yet. Ministers do not yet know. But you may take it from me that there will be an Assembly." Well, we fought it off. It did not happen when those who passed that message expected it to happen in 1980. It will not even happen in 1981. But in 1982, in this attenuated form, which is as much as they can manage at present, they reckon it will just do. It will take them on their way.
There have been expressions of regret in the debate that all the honest attempts that the House and successive Governments have made to find some solution in Northern Ireland have been so unsuccessful. "Why", said one hon. Member after another, " a person hardly mentions one of those suggestions before scorn is poured on it, sometimes from both sides of the House." One or two hon. Members commiserated with the Secretary of State for having shared that experience today. I shall tell him why it happens. I will explain, for the reason is simple, why all these proposals, so well meant and so well intended, have foundered.
Let me first, however, refer to a very interesting passage in the Secretary of State's speech. He was describing direct rule, and he came on very accurately—it was a well written passage—to describe the inadequacies of direct rule, due to the fact that this House and the hon. Members and Ministers in Her Majesty's Government have to deal with matters which in the rest of the Kingdom are dealt with by people on the spot, elected by the people on the spot, in various forms of local government body.
It was an absolutely accurate statement of the one practical difference—certainly the one practical difference which affects ordinary people—between the thing that we call direct rule and that which is not known as direct rule but is the rule in all other parts of the United Kingdom which hon. Members represent—the absence of ordinary common-or-garden local administration. The passage followed so naturally, so logically, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that one could almost see the paragraph indentation at the point where it did not lead to the conclusion to which in an earlier draft it had led. It led instead to something with which it had nothing to do.
That brings me to my explanation. In dealing with Northern Ireland, the House has consistently refused to apply its own principles. We may be as modest or self-deprecatory as we wish, but we in this country and in this House have acquired a good deal of wisdom over these 700 years or so. It is that wisdom which we flout whenever we deal with that part of the United Kingdom. We would not dream in any other circumstances of setting up a political advisory body in a part of the Kingdom represented in this House. We would not dream of saying "You should have an Executive which is recruited from people who have been elected to do opposite things". All the proposals, small and great, for the government of Northern Ireland fly in the face of the constitutional principles upon which this House exists. That is the reason why they all fail and why they all founder. They are unworkable for the reasons for which we do not have them in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Powell: I would rather not give way, if the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not mind. He and I—and it has been mainly he—have done a lot of preparatory work together for this, and we in Northern Ireland are much indebted to him for the constitutional doctrine so clearly and properly applicable to the Province which at some expense of time and trouble he taught to the House of Commons and to the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East used the expression "We have been pursuing dual policies". I am taking the phrase out of the context in which he used it, but it is a beautiful phrase to describe the way in which Parliament has acted since Northern Ireland, which was always its responsibility, returned in 1972 to be its direct responsibility. We have "pursued dual policies", and the Government are doing so at this very moment.
The Government say, as they must say of any part of the United Kingdom, that Ulster remains part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority of its people so wish. But if one says that there is no choice but to treat Northern Ireland exactly as one would treat any other part of the United Kingdom, to govern it as any other part of the United Kingdom is and to represent it as any other part of the United Kingdom is. If we attempt to do otherwise, there is a contradiction which immediately bears its fruit.
In one contribution it was said that the people of Great Britain are the guarantors of Northern Ireland. They are indeed, whatever was said in section 1 of the 1949 Act. The right hon. Member for Mansfield was quite right when he said that the guarantee was not a paper or a statutory one. It is the inherent guarantee that applies to any part of the United Kingdom represented in this Parliament of the United Kingdom. As he said, it is a consequence of logic.
Moreover, it was said that the guarantors are entitled to something in return for their guarantee. So they are. Each part of the United Kingdom is guaranteed by the whole of the United Kingdom, but only upon condition that that part, claiming as its birthright to be part of the United Kingdom, fulfils the laws of the United Kingdom and complies with the constitutional procedures—representation and all the rest—of the United Kingdom.
That is the condition, the ticket, the price. Those who would provide Northern Ireland with different laws, Governments and constitutions contradict the guarantee itself and deny the assurance that they gave to the people of Northern Ireland. They do not do it in secret; for the contradiction is well seen and understood by the enemies of this country, who thereby are the enemies of that, the most vulnerable part of this country.
In that ambiguity, that self-contradiction, lies—I now repeat something that I remember telling the House nine years ago—the ultimate guilt of this House and of successive Governments for the suffering of our fellow citizens in that Province.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: One is bound to listen to the right hon. Member for Down., South (Mr. Powell) and envy his superb intellect. One might say that he has done an incredible demolition job on the proposal put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The only trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman has done a demolition job on a building that is not yet standing. His remarks—powerful though they are—suggest that he knows what is in my right hon. Friend's mind when he cannot possibly know. The right hon. Gentleman has only the sketchiest of details given in my right hon. Friend's speech. Therefore, to discuss that brief outline in the way in which he has is to stretch one's credulity.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of Parliament and what parliamentary democracy means in the United Kingdom. He is right to warn us of the dangers of tampering with parliamentary democracy—whether by trying to give Northern Ireland some form of representation it does not currently have, or whether by some form of devolved assembly—and the risk to ourselves and the powers we possess. That is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, and it is our duty to listen. But I suggest that he should wait to see the details of my right hon. Friend's proposals before being quite so categoric in saying that they are bound to be as disastrous for Northern Ireland and the future of parliamentary democracy as he suggested.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will find time to produce a Green Paper before the end of the year which spells out in some detail exactly what is in his mind. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks about a nominated Parliament seemed


to change the type of structure that my right hon. Friend had put before the House. Clearly a nominated Parliament is a considerable remove from an advisory council.
I cannot pretend that I was not disappointed that my right hon. Friend should feel that an advisory council was the first step when considering better institutions for the government of Northern Ireland. I have spent several years persuading my right hon. Friend and his predecessors that we cannot consider that Northern Ireland has proper, democratic Government while it is so limited in its local government facilities and is so under-represented in Parliament. It might be said that at least Northern Ireland has district councils. Those of us who know anything about Northern Ireland's local government structure know that those district councils have far more limited powers than councils in any other part of the United Kingdom. Instead of starting at the top, the Government might have considered that the redressing of that wrong, by expanding the powers of district councils, would have made a more positive contribution to democracy in the Province.
I am told that other parties in Northern Ireland would resist such proposals. However, if it is right that democracy should be seen to be working in the community of Northern Ireland, it must be right for Parliament to do what is right in the eyes of the majority of people and to give Northern Ireland its proper local government representation, just as we have now, thank God, decided to give Northern Ireland its proper parliamentary representation.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has not found it possible to consider some change to the area boards and to make some of their members more directly elected than at present. Area boards and district councils, if amended, could give a local government structure to Northern Ireland which—even if not exactly comparable to the structure in other parts of the United Kingdom—would at least expand the democratic process in local government.
I must admit to having some sympathy with the concept of an advisory council. I thought about this subject and wondered whether some consultative council was in my right hon. Friend's mind or whether I could have put that idea in his mind during our debate. However, when I read The Times I realised that my thoughts had been preceded by those of others, who had thought more diligently and effectively. As I read the story in The Times I was reminded of the words of the late Reginald Maudling. He once told me that in nature barrels leaked from the botton, but in politics barrels leaked from the top. With those succinct words ringing in my mind as I read that story, I realised that if we were to hear about an advisory council in the course of the debate Reginald Maudling's words would, once again, be proved true.
When I consider the details of the proposed advisory council, I am slightly perplexed to know why my right hon. Friend should think it necessary to have an advisory council to consider matters that could have reasonably been considered by a Select Committee, or, more simply, by a Royal Commission. The structure of government in Northern Ireland and the role of Northern Ireland Departments are the stuff of a Royal Commission. Those of us who have considered Northern Ireland's local government will be aware of the Commission under Sir Patrick Macrory which drew up the present structure. Why is it neccessary to have an advisory council instead of a

Royal Commission or—if it is felt better to keep the matter within the House—a Select Committee made up of Northern Ireland Members and other hon. Members? That is my first question.
Secondly, I ask the Secretary of State on what basis he proposes to choose the representation from the district councils. At present 12 Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland sit in this House—or will when the Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat is filled. There are three Members from Northern Ireland in the European Parliament. There are 26 district councils. Seventy per cent. of the votes cast in the local district council elections were cast for three parties, yet 12 parties have one or two district councillors within the vast mass of those made up by the three parties. On what basis, therefore, will my right hon. Friend select the 35 other members for his advisory council? Will it be done on the percentage of votes that they got in the district council elections? What equation will produce the 35?
Is it really reasonable to suppose that hard-working Northern Ireland Members of Parliament will find time to be active both in this House of Commons and on the advisory council in Northern Ireland? If we believe that a considerable amount of Northern Ireland legislation has to be taken on the Floor of the House that requires the attendance of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, is it not asking rather a lot of them to be both here and at an advisory council in Belfast?
There is one deficiency—a uniqueness—about Northern Ireland in terms of Westminster politics, and that is that all those Ministers who represent the Departments in the Northern Ireland Government are not drawn from the Province. They are not drawn from the Province, whether they represent the Conservative Party or the Labour Party. Looking into the future, there is little likelihood of any Ulster Member of Parliament actually being a Minister with responsibilities in Northern Ireland.
Because that is the situation there is no interface, as there is in Scotland or Wales, between the Ministers and the areas that they represent. Thus, to that extent, some form of consultative council or advisory council which provides the interface between the community of Ulster and those who seek to govern the Province would have some value.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, instead of drawing his advisory council purely from those who have been elected in one way or another—either, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, to perform a local authority function or to perform a function in Europe or here in Westminster—he might consider that advisory council in a broader community sense. It might have a greater value and validity in the minds of Ulster people if those who made up the council were drawn from the whole community and not just from the politicians. Why not include the leaders of Northern Ireland industry, agriculture or the trade unions? In their own narrow sense they are as representative of part of the community as are the politicians. A council that drew so widely from the community would be of more value in creating the interface between Government and people.
Perhaps such a council would have another value. Instead of creating this extra-parliamentary committee, which, as the right hon. Member for Down, South warned us, may pose an inherent threat to the continuance of Westminster parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland terms in the way in which that democracy applies to the


United Kingdom, there could be a community council, smaller, perhaps, than 50 but closer to the Secretary of State, and more of a consultative body in terms of the running of the community, its economy, fanning and social problems. Would that not have a value to the Secretary of State which might make his job and those of his Ministers more effective in explaining to the community what he is seeking to do and hearing from its leaders their views on his proposals?
Such a body would not have a legislative function. It could not have such a function. It would simply be advisory. Such a body would clearly not be the right body to look at the three points that he has suggested that his advisory council would examine. A Secretary of State's council made up of a mix of politicians and community leaders would, I like to believe, close the gap that exists and will continue to exist while Northern Ireland cannot be governed by Ministers who have constituencies in the Province.
In those terms, I offer these suggestions to my right hon. Friend. I offer them at this moment because the advisory council is still in the process of being structured. Whatever suggestions might be made about how the advisory council might appear when hon. Members debate the Green Paper or whatever be the form in which the Government choose to present it, this seems to be the moment to feed in my thoughts.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I listened with some interest earlier to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) pontificating about activities in Northern Ireland over the last three months. We have heard all sorts of theories about Northern Ireland since at least 1968. What worries me is that some of the fancy theories were actually put into practice. Each has ended in abject failure. The reason is that all flew in the teeth of reality.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that the Labour Party was embarked upon a course of allowing us self-determination so long as we were determined to commit suicide. That is a course that the people of Northern Ireland have no intention of following. We will not follow it. We will not have any device, no matter how that device is constructed, that sets us on the path to destruction.
I do not wish to take up much time, as many hon. Members wish to speak. I should like to refer briefly, however, to the two orders that we are asked to pass. I thought that the effect of direct rule was stated by my Roman Catholic constituents in recent articles in local newspapers. An article in The Londonderry Sentinel says:
Let us not forget that it is the Catholics who are suffering at the hands of the IRA through extortion, knee-capping, and the destruction of property, plus many other added terrorist ideals.
In The Belfast Newsletter of 16 June there was an account of a Londonderry man who had been shot in both legs by the IRA and had had to have one leg amputated. His mother had described the terrorists as
'Satan's slaves' from whom Ireland needed protection.
The mother urged all decent people to get together to save other young men from the fate suffered by her son, Noel, a 28-year-old father of five.
Added to that are the riots that we have experienced in Londonderry over many years, not least over the past few months. There has been endless destruction of property and attacks emanating from the Creggan and the Bogside

in particular on law-abiding citizens. My constituents who live in those areas have, above all people, been put into the hands of the murderers, the gunmen, the arsonists and the bombers. If the newspaper reports are to be believed, my constituents are in terror of their lives. That is a very true indictment of successive Secretaries of State who have allowed that condition to pertain for so long in the city.
I deal only with that city, because it is the part of my constituency where the problem is most rife. However, it is not the only one, as the Secretary of State knows. Hon. Members who represent the many other areas that are similarly affected will no doubt talk of them.
There is a cry from the streets in my constituency, a cry that is echoing more and more clearly not only from the Protestant population but from the Roman Catholic population. Simply stated, it is "Get the IRA off our backs". The people do not care much what measures are needed to get it off their backs.
There is no denying what the folk are saying, and what they have been saying more and more clearly for years. It is now coming through more and more clearly in the press as well. A Government who do not heed that cry and who do not take the necessary steps, whatever those steps may be, to dispose of that evil cancer in Northern Ireland society, will be, and have been, judged a failure in Northern Ireland.
Are the Government now prepared seriously to do something about that problem, or shall we go on with the nonsense so clearly exposed earlier in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have tonight heard a remarkable speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). One of its most compelling and outstanding qualities was that it added considerable force to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he needed an advisory council. Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South I am much more convinced by my right hon. Friend's arguments than I was when I first heard them.
The right hon. Gentleman advanced a powerful argument in favour of the responsibility of the House. He rightly reminded us that ultimate responsibility for legislation in Northern Ireland rested with the House. But what he did not fully perceive—or what, if he perceived it, he did not fully state—was that one can discharge that kind of responsibility only with knowledge. The House cannot discharge its obligations to the people of Northern Ireland unless it has a proper recognition of the reaction of the people in Northern Ireland to the policies put forward by the Government.
I have never supposed for one moment that the authentic voice of Northern Ireland was represented by the majority of Northern Ireland Members. One of them—the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—is boycotting the House. Great as is my respect for the right hon. Member for Down, South, I do not believe, have never believed, and do not expect to be convinced, that he is an authentic representative of the people of Northern Ireland.
I have listened to many other hon. Members from the Province and I do not think that they are truly representative of the people of that Province. If that is true—and I suspect that most hon. Members would agree


that it is—any additional information that the House can obtain is essential if we are fully to discharge the obligations that the right hon. Gentleman reminded us of.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said, as a general proposition "The Province is part of the United Kingdom and therefore should be governed in precisely the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom." That cannot be. That is an illusion. That is nonsense. We cannot give to the Northern Ireland local authorities unfettered control over education. We cannot give to the Northern Ireland local authorities unfettered control over housing. Why not? Because they would abuse it as they have in the past and as they will again.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Bunkum.

Mr. Hogg: We who have had to look back at what has been done in Northern Ireland since the 1920s know that it is not bunkum. We are not prepared to give to the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland anything approaching unfettered control. We have to contemplate something new.
Speaking on behalf of myself and, I suspect, most other hon. Members, I welcome the Secretary of State's suggestion. It is more likely that we shall have a truly representative voice that way than we do from hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had no intention of making a speech in the debate, but the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) requires a few comments from one or two Opposition Members. The right hon. Gentleman made a devastating speech and an analysis against the Government's proposals that many of us will go along with, up to a point. He referred to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and opposed his proposal.
The right hon. Member for Down, South made only one proposal—that there should be full integration. In other words, he said that we should leave the situation as it is and continue with Members from Northern. Ireland having their say in this House, as before. Over a number of years many proposals and many attempts have been made to reach a solution in Northern Ireland. None of them, including those by the right hon. Gentleman, have been successful.
The violence in Northern Ireland has continued. The proposals from various sides have been rejected. I am not close to Northern Ireland, but I do not agree with the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that Northern Ireland Members are not representative of the Northern Ireland people. They represent the people who elect them. They are not representative of everybody in Northern Ireland. That must be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is representative of the views of those who elect him. Others represent other views. We are victims of history.
I should like to put the case as someone who is not close to Northern Ireland, who is not looking at the problem from an Ulster point of view, but who has the view of the rest of us in the United Kingdom. I refer to those who look across the water to Northern Ireland, whether we are Roman Catholic, Protestant, Church of England, Muslim,

or anything else. We look with horror at what is happening to our people in that Province. We look with horror at the violence, whether it be committed by the gunmen on one side or on the other. No one will suggest that it has only been the gunmen from the IRA who have been involved—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Pretty well.

Mr. Heffer: Over the years gunmen from both sides have been involved. There is no point in moving away from reality. We have looked on all of this with horror. We have had some positive proposals from some of my colleagues who say that we should get the troops out. Some actually suggest that we get our troops out and put in United Nations troops—as though that would solve the problem. It would not solve the problem, any more than the idea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East of an independent Ulster.
What would happen to the minority? Would there not still be a Protestant ascendancy in an independent Ulster? None of us wants that. What is the solution? We have heard a million solutions and we have witnessed an attempt to move in the direction of a solution by the Government. They do not say that it will work, and in my view the right hon. Member for Down, South is right—it will not work.
I said that we are the victims of history. This argument is not the same as the argument about devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. I was against such devolution to those countries. But this is not the same argument. Originally England conquered Ireland—[Interruption.] That situation was accepted in Wales a long time ago—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) may not have accepted that, but the overwhelming majority of the people in Wales have accepted it in a recent vote.
Historically, the position is different with Ireland. The people in Ireland over hundreds of years wanted measures of independence. There was the Grattan Parliament, and all sorts of different things. We insisted on maintaining our control, until the border developed. No matter whether we have direct rule once again, a continuation of integration, some sort of advisory council, or this fantastic idea of a nominated Parliament—whatever that means—the problem will not be solved until the border is eliminated. Incidentally, I have never heard of such a thing as a nominated Parliament. There is either an elected Parliament or a nominated council of some sort.
Until the border is eliminated, the problem will remain. It will keep coming up, if not in one generation then in the next, and the one after that. That is the crux of the problem. We have to find out how we can reach a peaceful solution to the problem of the elimination of the border. How do we get rid of it? How can we accommodate the millions of Protestants in Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland, which is Roman Catholic? How can we have an agreement whereby they will live in harmony and peace? Do we need, as a first step, representation from North and South on some type of council? I do not know. However, we shall never solve the problem until we address ourselves to the issue and work might and main to reach a solution.

Mr. Clive Soley: Tonight's debate has seen the culmination of a change that has been


coming about in the overall debate on the politics of Ireland. That change has been coming and, tonight, has taken expression not least from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), because he offered a solution which, although I do not agree with it, opened the debate. That has been recognised and spelt out by the debate in the Labour Party about what our policy should be.
That has been further highlighted by the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It has been brought to a head by the election of the late Bobby Sands and the continuing hunger strike. If we ignore that, we ignore a painful fact that will not go away.
I listened with great care to the suggestions made by the Secretary of State. I wish them the same success that I wished the talks that he initiated a year ago. However, I fear that they will fail, for the reasons that the representatives of the Unionist parties have spelled out. The problem for the Unionist parties, as I understand it, is that they cannot enter into any meaningful negotiations—not because they are not honourable people or because they do not think that there is a problem but because, for them, to enter into negotiations represents an explicit recognition that there is something special and different about Northern Ireland, whereas their case is that they want unity with the United Kingdom and a form of local government which is not essentially dissimilar to that which any other part of the United Kingdom can expect. That is a logical and understandable position to adopt. If I held a Unionist view, which I do not, I would share that point of view and would not negotiate. That is the problem which time and again faces Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland.
There is another logic available, which is the logic that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) mentioned, that we move towards a united Ireland. There are problems with that, however. The Times in its editorial today said:
The Ulster question goes to the heart of allegiance and national identity. That is the root issue of political society".
The problem is that The Times did not go on beyond that to question the entity of Ulster as it was set up in the 1920s. A large percentage of the population do not accept it as a legitimate State. That position is not new. We have heard that the violence was decreasing until the recent death of Bobby Sands. That is true. The figures for violence in Northern Ireland have for years gone up and down like a roller coaster ever since the State was created.
The alternative is to work towards a reunited Ireland with safeguards for the minority in that united Ireland. I recognise that that path is strewn with difficulties and dangers. It must be. No Opposition Member believes that the people who believe in the union do not have real and genuine fears that they will be a minority in a united Ireland. Some of those fears are grossly exaggerated and I do not think that they are always real fears. but fears are what matter, those fears exist and must be dealt with.
There is a wider dimension as we have to consider the matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, from the point of view of the British people as a whole. This country has made its name for political democracy in the furthest corners of the world, yet tonight we are discussing an order that will undermine that democracy of which we are so proud. It is precisely the growth and extension of Acts of Parliament which have trespassed on the civil liberties of our citizens that cause so much

concern. Democracies are seldom broken overnight. They are whittled away. The core of the rock within is the need to keep stepping up the sort of legislation which eats away at people's civil liberties. We proscribe political parties. We deport people from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Those are serious matters, which eat out the heart of a democracy. We cannot allow that to continue. We must deal with the political problem that causes it. I recognise that we cannot simply discuss those acts overnight as though they are of no importance, but we must grasp the political nettle that lies underneath.
When people say, as some have today, that to talk about a reunited Ireland is to surrender to terrorism, they could not be further from the truth. Above all, they are allowing the terrorists to define the terms of the argument. I refuse to have the terms of the argument defined for me by terrorists or paramilitaries of any sort. It is reasonable for me to hold the view—as I have since long before the present troubles broke out—that the only sensible course is a reunited Ireland. To say, as some have tried in the debate, that that is a surrender to terrorism is a dangerous nonsense.
The importance of the debate within the Labour Party is that it gives some hope to the minority community in Northern Ireland that there is another way besides that of violence. My criticism of the Government's actions in a number of areas is that they almost assume that there are only two sides to the Irish problem—those who use violence and those who do not. It is my experience that not only the protesting prisoners but others who associate with them are as split and divided in their attitudes as any other political group. For example, some hunger strikers want political status, and nothing less will do. Let us be clear what we are talking about. Political status means having a command structure in prisons. That is what it is about. That is the one issue on which we should never give way. There are many other issues on which we can give way. The command structure is wanted by the hard-liners. But many others, both in the prisons and outside, who support them want a way off the hook. The difficulty is that when we take a hard line we reinforce the hard-liners on the other side. That is the failure of that policy and of the policy of pretending that we will not talk about the possibility of a reunited Ireland because to do so would be to encourage terrorism. I do not believe that it would do that. I am not prepared to have the terms of the debate defined in that way.
I would like time to say something about the way that we should approach the problems or reuniting Ireland because that needs to be spelt out in detail. It would not be in order to do that now. I recognise that the Secretary of State wishes to reply to the debate. With that proviso I draw my comments to a conclusion.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: One of the advantages of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) described as an odd procedure—that of having a debate concluded at about 10 o'clock and then started again—is that it has enabled a number of contributions—six in all—on the subjects that we have been debating all day to be made by those who did not have a chance to speak earlier. Five of the six devoted themselves mostly to the second order. One, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), referred mostly to the first order. I shall return later to the points that he raised.
Five of the six Members dealt with one order and, needless to say, there were five different views. There are always five different views when five people speak about Irish affairs—and about many other affairs, also. It is not any surprise to me that the proposals that I put forward this afternoon setting out the intention of the Government to move in a certain direction were not received with unanimous rapture and applause. There were different attitudes to the proposals.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) did not think much of the proposals. As we all expected, he argued his favourite line—that Northern Ireland should be treated in precisely the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom, in spite of the differences that are all too obvious for some of us to see.
He believes that the governance of the Province should be exactly the same as anywhere else, with district councils and county or regional councils above them, with the final authority resting with the Government and Parliament. That is an understandable and respectable point of view. However, the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have convinced his fellow Northern Irelanders that it is a good idea. I wish him luck if he wishes to do so. As I shall seek to show, he may be able to do so by means of some of the machinery that I have suggested.
I hear, as hon. Members will know and as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has heard, that many people in the Province are bitterly opposed to the return of power to local authorities because they do not believe that it will be properly used. They may be wrong. I merely say to the right hon. Member for Down, South and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that they have not convinced people in Northern Ireland that they are wrong. There still exists antipathy towards that course. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his endeavours not to persuade me that it is a good idea but to persuade the people to whom he seeks to apply it.
The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury spoke about the composition that I proposed for the Northern Ireland Council. It would be my intention to invite people to serve on the council after seeking nominations from the Northern Ireland parties which have been shown in recent elections to have a substantial following in the Province. The parties will be asked for a specified number of nominations related to their electoral strength. The term "nominated Parliament" has been used once or twice during the debate. That is not what the body will be.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is what the Minister of State called it.

Mr. Atkins: I want to clear up the issue for the right hon. Gentleman. I am saying that that is not what the body will be.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is what the hon. Gentleman said it would be.

Mr. Atkins: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state for the third time that it will not be a nominated Parliament. It will be a Northern Ireland Council whose members will be invited by me to serve.
They will be drawn from a list that will have been nominated by the political parties from those who are elected representatives. They will be elected not to the council but to other bodies. I explained earlier that to set up an elected council of the sort that is proposed would take time. There would have to be primary legislation passed through Parliament to allow that to be done if it were to consider the range of matters that I wish it to consider. I am adopting the device that I have proposed because I believe that there is a need for speed. I believe that there is a need for this advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury suggested that I could obtain advice in other ways. He was right to make that suggestion. In fact, I already obtain advice in other ways. He suggested that leaders of business, of trade unions and of agriculture, for example, should be appointed to bodies to advise me. I am already receiving advice from such persons in a number of areas. There is, for example, the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which contains precisely the type of people to which my hon. Friend referred. There is the Industrial Development Forum, which advises my hon. Friend the Minister of State on industrial development matters. There is the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. There is a range of bodies to which I appoint members. The difference between those bodies and the body that I propose is that I shall not elect or choose those who sit on it. I shall invite people who are already elected—not by me, but by their fellow Northern Irishmen—to take positions. They will be nominated by their parties and I shall simply issue the invitation.
Although I have a great deal of advice from a wide range of quangos, the one thing which I do not have is advice from elected politicians outside the House. I get advice inside the House. That is extremely useful. I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Down, South to this because he did not hear something which I said earlier, so perhaps he did not hear this comment either. All of us, when we make decisions, large or small, like to try to find out the effects of those decisions on the people whom they will mostly affect. We take advice from our constituents or from whatever source we want.
In matters concerning Northern Ireland, of course we get advice from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, but I do not believe that we shall do ourselves any harm by getting as much advice as we can. I do not see why we should be any the worse off by getting advice from the advisory council. I for one would welcome advice from elected politicians not chosen by me but invited by me to serve, who will have three roles, which I shall go through quickly.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Atkins: I have only two minutes left, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I finish what I have to say.
First, I shall invite those people to study the activities of the Government Departments in Northern Ireland, rather in the manner in which the Select Committees do here, although it will not be the same thing. Secondly, I shall invite them to consider legislation. The right hon. Member for Down, South asked me whether it would be only Orders in Council. That would be my intention.


Thirdly, I would invite them to consider what arrangements for the future governance of the Province would command general support. That is where the right hon. Member and his hon. Friends can do their persuading, if they wish.
Those are three useful functions not currently being performed by a body such as the proposed council. Therefore, it is my intention to proceed along those lines, although I shall consult hon. Members from Northern Ireland and the Opposition, at the right hon. Member's request.
The hon. Member for Londonderry spoke of the difficulties which his constituents suffer and asked whether the Government would take further steps to rid his constituents and others in Northern Ireland of the scourge of terrorism. We remain determined to do that. However, as I said earlier, we remain determined to do it by using the law. We are seeking to return to a legal system, with which we are all familiar, in due course to get rid of the Acts which we are considering tonight. We want to use the law in order to make people obey the law. We are determined to do that, but we shall not go outside the law because we do not believe that, in the end, that will bring the peace which the hon. Member wants for his constituents.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes, 137 Noes, 28.

Division NO. 245]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Alison, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Dover, Denshore


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dunlop, John


Beith, A. J.
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dykes, Hugh


Best, Keith
Eggar, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Elliott, Sir William


Biggs-Davison, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Blackburn, John
Farr, John


Blaker, Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Andrew
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bradford, Rev R.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Philip


Brinton, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair


Brittan, Leon
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Brotherton, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawksley, Warren


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Heddle, John


Buck, Antony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butler, Hon Adam
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James A.


Cope, John
Knox, David


Costain, Sir Albert
Lawrence, Ivan





Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Squire, Robin


Major, John
Stainton, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stanley, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stevens, Martin


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Donald


Molyneaux, James
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Trippier, David


Murphy, Christopher
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, David


Needham, Richard
Wakeham,John


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Cranley
Ward, John


Osborn, John
Watson, John


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wells, Bowen


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wheeler, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wickenden, Keith


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Wilkinson, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Winterton, Nicholas


Raison, Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert



Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Rossi, Hugh
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy





NOES


Alton, David
Meacher, Michael


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Race, Reg


Canavan, Dennis
Richardson, Jo


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Cryer, Bob
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dobson, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Eastham, Ken
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Fitt, Gerard
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Flannery, Martin
Welsh, Michael


Heffer, Eric S.



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Mr. Clive Soley and


Lamond, James
Mr. Alfred Dubs.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (Social Survey Division)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: The White Paper on the future of the Government Statistical Service, published on 29 April, which was inspired by the report made to the Prime Minister by Sir Derek Rayner, has caused very serious and widespread concern. It is the concern not only of the 2,500 civil servants whose jobs are put in jeopardy by this and earlier reviews but of distinguished academics and statisticians, among many others.
What the White Paper suggests is a fundamental shift in attitude towards research in general and social surveys in particular. If the Government's plans, as set out in the White Paper, are carried into effect, drastic cuts will be made in surveys covering social, industrial and economic data. Sir Claus Moser, a former president of the Royal Statistical Society, who must know more about the value of statistics than Sir Derek Rayner does about loss leaders, has delivered a biting attack on the Government's plans. From the tone of the Rayner exercise, said Sir Claus:
…one would think that judging the need for statistics was like judging the need for paper clips.
Sir Claus, as well as being a former president of the Royal Statistical Society, was head of the Government Statistical Service from 1967 to 1978. In his attack on the Government's plans he went on to say that the Rayner review looked at administrative costs but ignored the value of information and the vital need to educate Ministers, senior civil servants, industrialists and others to make better use of statistics in making more rational decisions. One might add the needs of Parliament and Select Committees to Sir Claus Moser's list, but Parliament is mentioned only twice in the White Paper.
The director of the Central Statistical Office, who is also head of the Government Statistical Service, said that one of the objectives of his office was
…to make sure that as far as possible Parliament and the public have ready access to the same statistical information as is available to Ministers.
The Rayner team commented that the director's statement of objectives was too open-ended and needed sharp emphasis on value for money.
The attitude of the DHSS Rayner team to the needs of Parliament was that
Members of Parliament will have to be referred repeatedly to published sources. Select Committees and Royal Commissions may have to obtain their own information, with their own budgets for the purpose if the information is not already available within the Department…the Public Accounts Committee may have to be prepared to accept that staff and resources are not available to provide certain information.
Select Committees are, of course, given the power to send for "persons, papers and records", and the idea that Departments are entitled to send the bill in afterwards for work carried out is totally alien to the traditional view of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
The White Paper explicitly says that statistics should be reduced to what the Government believe they themselves need, and that alone. In totally rejecting that approach Sir Claus Moser said that he found it disturbing that the Government's criterion was simply that of what they

needed when, through the supply of statistics, they had a duty to inform the public. He emphasised also that it was short-sighted to cut data checking, especially in the light of serious past errors, such as the under-recording of
exports.
The White Paper envisages an overall cut of 25 per cent. in the Government Statistical Services, but in the case of the important social survey division of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys the cut in staff and resources could be one of 40 per cent.
For the sake of £750,000 to £1 million, which is much
less than a drop in the bucket of total Government expenditure, a service of outstanding value is faced not just with upheaval but with possible destruction. For that sum, the Government are prepared to reduce essential data on housing and education, and to lower the quality of family expenditure data which the Rayner review itself recognised may be made less reliable under its proposals. In turn, that will damage the interests—by concealing their problems and needs—of some of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society.
Professor Peter Townsend, the author of "Poverty in the United Kingdom", who knows more about the study of poverty than Sir Derek Rayner knows even about window dressing, argues that the Government's proposed cuts constitute nothing less than a restriction of democracy. He sees the Government's proposals as an attempt to
…divert, contain and reduce criticisms of Government policies and, in particular, to restrict the flow of information that is required for the free discussion of industrial, economic and social conditions in Britain.
That is a deeply serious charge and one that the Minister must not try to sweep under the carpet in replying to this debate tonight. There has been little, if any, consultation with outside bodies such as the NHS, the TUC, the CBI, local authorities and other bodies including pressure groups. These bodies are users of statistics and are involved in providing statistics. Surely they should be
consulted.
Final decisions on the future of the social survey division have still to be made. Moreover, I appreciate that a Government statistical service working party is now considering the division's future and has been asked to report by October. The debate is, therefore, a timely opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the dangers of the Rayner proposals. As the Minister will know, the proposals were subjected to damning criticisms at a recent meeting of the Royal Statistics Society. There were over 300 participants at the meeting and the RSS has now set up a working party to reply to the Rayner proposals. The working party's report will clearly be an important statement and I trust that the Minister will agree with me tonight that no irreversible decision should be taken about the social survey division's future until he has had an opportunity to study the report. Meanwhile, the Minister should reflect on the statement made on 10 June by Professor Harvey Goldstein, chairman of the statistics committee of the Social Science Research Council, that the Rayner proposals
would lead to a general deterioration of information and to worse decisions in Whitehall.
The Rayner proposals are couched in the jargon of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The public are assured that their purpose is to discriminate between what is essential and non-essential, to secure value for money and to end "bureaucratic nonsense" which, we are told, can all be done without detracting from the quality of work


carried out by the Government statistical service. These apparently disinterested and commendable aims obscure the facts about the extent and distribution of the proposed cuts. At the same time, they discourage examination of the flawed logic which has made the social survey division a target for special attack.
The Rayner team regards even the uses made of the general household survey as "desirable rather than essential", which means that, in their view, fundamental social questions on which it casts light are something with which Whitehall decision-makers need not necessarily be concerned. As we have seen, it is also inherent in the Rayner philosophy that information should be collected not for the information of Parliament, or for the public at large, but only for the purposes of the Government. This again is a matter of considerable importance. Indeed, it begs the whole question about the role of information services in a democratic society.
It has long been accepted that information paid for at public expense should be disseminated as widely as possible. Now it is proposed that such information should be available only to substantiate preconceived political objectives. That would, of course, very much strengthen executive government vis-a-vis Parliament and the public at large and is not a change that should be casually approved. The White Paper states:
There is no more reason for Government to act as universal provider in the statistical field than in any other".
The implication here, as one commentator has already said, is that anyone seeking data paid for out of public funds is a kind of statistical services scrounger.
In undertaking its work, the social survey division provides national coverage as well as taking account of regional disparities, and the Scottish Rayner team points out in its report that if the size of national samples is drastically reduced, reliable regional figures can no longer be derived from the data. Rayner's critics point out that official statisticians are much more likely to be granted access to otherwise confidential data, such as health records, than private sector research staff. Nor is the limited scope of small-scale research its only disadvantage. The OPCS enjoys facilities for the recording, storage and retrieval of information unparalleled elsewhere and has, in addition, a highly skilled and experienced staff of unimpeachable reputation. The facilities and staff of the OPCS comprise a most valuable asset not only to Whitehall but to all of us, and for the Government to put some of its major functions at risk is grossly irresponsible.
The effect of the proposals in the White Paper on the dissemination of statistics is likely to be a restriction of access to information, standards will inevitably fall and, above all, sensible planning will be virtually impossible. Not content with narrowing the breadth and scope of social research, the White Paper recommends the shrinking of sample bases of surveys and the lowering of the quality of analysis. This could mean that minority groups no longer showed up in the continuous surveys, such as the family expenditure and general household surveys. In consequence, the results of these surveys would become less comprehensive and useful. Indeed, this cannot fail to occur unless positive steps are taken to maintain the representativeness of survey work.
OPCS staff, for their part—and there are many who share their view—do not feel that the Rayner review gave serious consideration to these issues. The continuous surveys, which are a major part of the social survey

division's work, would, if Rayner's proposals go ahead, cease to be an accurate reflection of the social and economic characteristics of the population. Fundamental information about spending patterns will be affected. Yet this information forms the essential basis of the retail price index, and the Rayner report admits that the family expenditure survey data may be less reliable under its proposals. Essential information on employment, attitudes to work and use of public services will also be lacking because of the narrowing of the basis of inquiry. The Equal Opportunities Commission is known to be concerned that its law enforcement functions, and also its general duty to promote equality of opportunity, will be hindered if reductions in sample size—for instance, of the GHS—are implemented, because detailed statistics will become less reliable and less frequent. So we are also talking about the future of equal opportunities in this debate. The EOC is dependent on good official statistics for monitoring the position of women and does not have a large research budget from which it can arrange its own data collection.
What is also clear is that ad hoc surveys will suffer most of all from the proposed cuts. The social survey division has conducted ad hoc surveys on virtually every aspect of contemporary society, from health and welfare to employment and leisure. Recent work has included the monitoring of the TOPS scheme for the Manpower Services Commission, a survey of drinking habits and a report on the problems of one-parent families for the Finer committee. A survey of public attitudes to the deaf will help to break down the barriers which, both through accident and design, prevent deaf people from full participation in the life of their community. Also, in the field of disability, the survey carried out in the late 1960s by Amelia Harris for the OPCS on "The Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain" has been a standard work of reference on the characteristics and requirements of disabled people.
This monumental work of international renown was the first attempt to draw together information pertaining to all aspects of handicap: employment, housing, health and leisure. It is a detailed and comprehensive guide for planners to the accurate and economic allocation of resources. It has, in fact, been the foundation for the development of benefits and services for the disabled over the past decade. It is, none the less, in urgent need now of updating since the shifting pattern of need requires regular monitoring. Yet if the Rayner proposals are put into effect it is doubtful whether such extensive research will ever be undertaken again. On the contrary, as Valerie Ellis, of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants points out:
Had Rayner reported in 1966, we might well never have had the Amelia Harris Survey at all".
The fact that the social survey division is an integral part of the Government machine ensures continuous contact between the survey staff and policy-makers within client departments. The social survey division is therefore in a much better position to understand the needs of departments, to evaluate and anticipate long-term developments, and to ensure that social survey work is practical and relevant, than private survey agencies could possibly be.
The Rayner report envisages that the social survey division will continue its advisory role, but it is difficult to see how this function can be performed adequately if the responsibility for the overall conduct of surveys is taken


away from it. The suggested privatisation of research, leading to the "contracting out" of surveys to external agencies deemed to be equally effective, is unsatisfactory on grounds other than narrow criteria of technical efficiency. Quality must be seen as a continuing, not a one-off, need, for, as the OPCS points out:
The highest standards are essential in policy-related research, when a mistaken decision can waste resources worth many hundreds of times the cost of providing information in the first place".
The intention of financing future work out of the existing budgets of client Departments, rather than from the central budget of the OPCS, will force Departments to be highly selective about the research that they undertake if they are to maintain anything near existing standards. In the case of Departments without substantial research budgets of their own, there will be no access to specialised information at all.
The only conclusion one can draw from the favour shown by the Government for the Rayner proposals is that they want deliberately to distance themselves from the effects of their policies on people generally. Indeed, the Rayner team themselves conceded that cuts affecting the work of the general household survey
would be likely to create an outcry that the Government does not want to know about the well-being of its citizens.
That may seem a trivial matter to some, but most people will regard the Government's unconcern for the social effects of their policies as both inexcusable and indefensible. Many will see the Government's attitude as being based more on paranoia than concern with true economy and real efficiency. Quite clearly, it also attacks the basis of democracy since every Government should be prepared to answer informed criticism. In future, criticism may have to be based on guesswork rather than evidence and debates on rancour instead of rational discussion.
There is no significant financial benefit to be had from the Rayner proposals. Indeed, the savings in central Government expenditure may be offset by increased expenditure on data collection in other parts of the public sector. To claim that the cause of efficiency will be better served by them is grotesquely misleading. The sacrificing of essential research leads, not to streamlined efficiency, but to the very "bureaucratic nonsense" which Rayner purports to oppose. It is, of course, always likely that bad decisions will be made on the basis of the best information, but it can be nothing more than luck if the reverse happens. Yet it is a "pot luck" approach on which the Government now want to rely for future policy making. Freedom of information also has to be considered in this context. A free and just society cannot do without adequate survey and research facilities. Nor can it afford to allow information to be hidden from the public through fear that it might stimulate pressure for social change.
In a recent letter to the press about the threat now posed to the social survey division, it was stated that for the Government to cripple the division's work would be an act of official vandalism. That is a very widely held view among people who know what the social survey division has achieved. The Government will expose themselves to severe censure if they fail to respond positively to the criticisms that are being made of their proposals, and I hope that the Minister will show in his reply tonight that he recognises the force and validity of these criticisms.
To be kind to him, some would put it to the Minister that he knows full well that Sir Claus Moser, Professors Townsend and Goldstein, Valerie Ellis of the IPCS and all the Government's other well-informed critics are right, but that he dare not gainsay the findings of a report, however damaging, from a man who was personally appointed to his task by the Prime Minister. Should that be his feeling, let the Minister reflect on the frankness and courage of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who said last Saturday, in a reference to the Prime Minister's other economic adviser:
Why pay Professor Walters £50,000 a year when you can buy his ruddy pamphlets for 25 pence?
Let the Minister speak with the same frankness and courage tonight, even if it means criticising the Prime Minister's other poodle.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). In my reply, I hope to give some assurances in those areas where I think that he is mistaken. I also hope to counter some of his more extravagant claims, namely, that our proposals are based on paranoia, or a wish to gag democracy and obstruct social change—or, indeed, that the Government have any wish to attack the foundations of democracy.
The right hon. Gentleman's concern for the disabled is well known and his observations about the relationship between social research and policy must, of course, command respect. I shall have something to say about that in a few moments, but first I want to remind the House of what Sir Derek Rayner actually proposed, and what the White Paper on Government statistical services has actually had to say about the work of the social survey division of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys.
In January 1980 the Minister for the Civil Service asked Sir Derek Rayner to oversee a review of the statistical services throughout Government. The aim of the review was to examine critically the statistical services available to each Minister, in order to establish what was essential and what less so, to simplify administration, to look for ways of improving efficiency and getting better value for money and to decide on the best arrangements for the efficient future management of statistical work. The social survey division of the OPCS was included in the review.
During the course of 1980 a report on the statistical services in each Department was submitted to the Minister concerned and Sir Derek Rayner presented his report on the interdepartmental aspects of the review to the Prime Minister in December 1980. All these reports are available in the Library of the House and more generally. Sir Derek's report comprised some 30 recommendations, of which two related specifically to the social survey division—one related to the continuous surveys and the other to the ad hoc surveys. It appears to the right hon. Gentleman that the report has more to say about costs than benefits, but I think that this is largely because costs can be measured explicitly, whereas the value of statistics is more often a matter for judgment. But the Government are resolved to cut out activities where there is insufficient benefit for the costs incurred.
It is not correct to say that there was no consultation with outside bodies. Sir Derek Rayner's report lists the names of bodies consulted, including the CBI, the TUC and the Organisation of Professional Users of Statistics.
I turn to the recommendation affecting the social survey division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and deal first with the continuous surveys. The social survey division carries out three continuous multi-purpose surveys—the family expenditure survey, the general household survey and the international passenger survey. In addition, the division pays a market research firm to carry out the national food survey, so the principle of contracting oil: to the private sector already exists and is accepted by OPCS.
Sir Derek recognised the usefulness of these surveys but suggested that there was scope for economies without damaging the essential needs of government. The Government have accepted these recommendations in principle, and the White Paper published by the Lord President of the Council reported that savings of about 25 per cent. could be made in the continuous surveys in the following ways.
First, the general household survey sample will be reduced, and field and clerical procedures will be considerably slimmed down. These changes will start from 1982. Secondly, subject to a final check of feasibility, the family expenditure survey will be merged with the national food survey. A decision will be taken in the near future. Thirdly, three options for matching the international passenger survey to essential Government needs are being considered. The aim is to save at least 25 per cent. of the current costs. Again, a decision will be made shortly.
The important point to register is that these three valuable continuous multi-purpose surveys are to remain; they are not to be abolished, but the Government believe that they can be run at lower cost and still meet essential needs. Judging from some of the comment in the press, one might think that Sir Derek had recommended that these surveys should be abolished, but this is not the case. They are to continue, but at lower cost.
So much for the continuous surveys. It is the proposals for ad hoc surveys that have aroused, if anything, greater concern. An ad hoc survey is a one-off project to fill a particular gap in information. The social survey division provides an ad hoc capability as an allied service to other Departments. That means that it pays for the full cost of these surveys from its own Vote, but customer Departments have, of course, to justify the expenditure.
There is no doubt that many important and valuable ad hoc surveys have been carried out over the years. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of them, and the list could be added to. All these are in important areas, where the Government need reliable information.
Sir Derek Rayner's report cast some doubt on the need for so many ad hoc surveys as the present social survey division capacity provides. In particular, he thought that greater use could be made of the continuous surveys to avoid the need for some ad hoc surveys. Moreover, he argued that there was a well-developed survey capability in the private sector and that it would usually be cheaper to use this than employ the social survey division of the OPCS. Furthermore, he maintained that in future Departments ought to pay for surveys directly and not have them as an allied service. In the move to a payment system, he suggested, there should be no transfer of funds from the OPCS to customer Departments. Consequently,

his recommendation for ad hoc surveys was that the aim should be to contract work out where private sector costs were less than those of the public service and that Departments should in future pay for surveys out of existing research funds.
These were far-reaching recommendations. Sir Derek estimated that if the OPCS concentrated on the continuous surveys, carried out a handful of ad hoc surveys and provided advice to Departments on survey methods and management, there would be a saving of up to 100 posts, and a further £1½ million if there were no transfer of funds.
The White Paper issued by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council stated that the Government had called for a further review of the commissioning of ad hoc surveys to make greater use of the private sector where this could do the work as effectively as and at lower cost than the public service. This review has now started, and it is hoped that there will be proposals for Ministers to consider in the autumn. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought that of course Ministers will not take final decisions before we have the working party's report.
There are a number of practical problems to be examined in the meantime, such as how to compare public and private sector costs, how to compare quality and so on. In the course of this review there will be the opportunity to consult widely outside Government circles and to assess the experience of other countries. The Secretary of State has agreed to consult the Civil Service unions before final decisions are taken.
I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review, but I can make some general remarks about the Government's objectives. It is not the Government's intention to do without the survey information necessary for planning the future of social services or for monitoring the effects of social policy. However, we believe that decisions on whether to conduct particular surveys should be taken in full knowledge of the cost of alternative ways of meeting requirements. Repayment puts the customer Department in a better relationship with the contractor and allows the customer to choose the most cost-effective contractor. This may not mean always selecting the lowest tender, for the quality of survey results is important. The aim has to be to get the best value for money. Many think that that will be best achieved by preserving a strong ad hoc survey capability in the social survey division—and that is a possible outcome. But it would be quite wrong, in my view, for the social survey division to be exempted from examination at a time when the need for, and the cost effectiveness of, so many parts of the public service is being questioned. In making their examination the Government will pay close attention to the quality of service required and we shall balance this against the cost.
One important point made in Sir Derek Rayner's report is that the social survey division should continue to act as a central co-ordinating body for Government survey research and provide a technical and managerial advisory service as required by Departments, and it is asserted that Departments should consult it about surveys before undertaking or contracting work within its competence. This emphasises the high regard that is held for the technical competence of the social survey division. If Departments take its advice more frequently in the future than they have in the past, there could well be increased value for money from surveys contracted out to the private sector.
It is significant, therefore, that Sir Derek Rayner's report accepts that all the present functions of the social survey division should remain intact but that the size should be questioned. The question is not "Should there be a social survey division?", or even, "Should it do ad hoc surveys?". The question is "How big an ad hoc capability do the Government need within the public service?"
Even if it is concluded that this capability should be smaller than at present, it will be possible, as it is now, to contract surveys to the private sector to meet additional needs. The division should, for example, have the capacity to handle any new major survey of the handicapped and impaired such as that carried out by Miss Amelia Harris in 1969.
I do not share the view of the hon. Member that Sir Derek Rayner's proposals, and the decisions the Government have so far taken on them, weaken in any way the democratic basis upon which knowledge of the people and of their behaviour and attitudes is obtained through social surveys and made available widely in publications. That has been a feature of the process of government in this country for the past 40 years and will continue. The public service has grown tremendously in the past 20 years and the statistical services with it. It is right to take stock of all aspects of that growth to see whether they continue to be justified.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister has little time. I specifically mentioned the Equal Opportunities Commission and the view of the Rayner team. Will the Minister comment on that?

Sir George Young: I said that when the working party was preparing its final report there would be an opportunity for consultations and discussions. If the Equal Opportunities Commission, or any other body, has anxieties, it should accept the offer and make its views known quickly.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure the hon. Gentleman about the Government's intentions in this matter. There is no intention of doing without information that is needed to plan for the future of social services or to monitor present policies. There is no intention to disband entirely the services at present provided by the social survey division. It does not face destruction, as the hon. Gentleman implied.
However, changes are being considered in the commissioning of surveys, and the need for surveys will be increasingly examined to ensure that only essential work is undertaken and that it is done in the most cost-effective way. This may mean that the ad hoc survey capability of Government is reduced and that it makes do with less than before. That is entirely appropriate at a time when the need to reduce public expenditure is so great.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to One o' clock.